MJl  WAJLJ-  r^R  ivAJ^., 
H EN]IY  PEMBERTON, 


I 


i  f^l  m 


11; 


lilt    lltilni!: 

It  If 


|1!  ".]■ 


SHAKSPERE 

AND 

SIR  WALTER  RALEGH 


y   f  I  \,  iT ,    /f  ~ 


SIU    WALTER    RALEGH 
From  a  portrait  formerly  in  the  possession  of  his  great-granddaughter 


SHAKSPERE 


AND 


SIR  WALTER  RALEGH 

INCLUDING  ALSO  SEVERAL  ESSAYS  PREVIOUSLY 
PUBLISHED  IN  THE  NEW  SHAKSPEAREANA 


BY 

HENRY  PEMBERTON,  Jr.,  M.A. 


EDITED  AFTER  THE  AUTHOR  S  DEATH  BY 

SUSAN  LOVERING  PEMBERTON 

FROM  AN  UNFINISHED  MANUSCRIPT,  WITH 
KINDLY  REVISION  BY  HER  HUSBAND'S  FRIEND 

CARROLL  SMYTH 


PHILADELPHIA  AND  LONDON 
J.  B.  LIPPINCOTT  COMPANY 

1914 


\/  \/  r 


COPTBIGHT,  1914,  BY  J.  B.  LIPPINCOTT  COMPANY 


PUBLISHED  OCTOBER,   I9I4 


PRINTED    BY  J.   B.   LIPPINCOTT   COMPANY 

AT  THE  WASHINGTON  SQUARE  PRESS 

PHILADELPHIA,   V.  S.  A. 


o 

m 


to 
to 


To  THE  Memory  of 

THE  GREAT  RALEGH 

THIS  UNFINISHED  WORK  IS  FAITHFULLY  DEDI- 
CATED, IN  ACCORDANCE  WITH  THE  EXPRESSED 
WISH   AND  INTENTION  OF  THE  AUTHOR 


PREFACE 

In  1905, 1  began  a  careful  study  of  the  Shakspere 
plays  and  poems  with  the  determination  to  permit 
myself  to  be  restricted  by  no  preconceived  theory  of 
authorship.  If  the  evidence  showed  William  Shaks- 
pere to  be  the  author,  well  and  good.  If  it  showed 
Francis  Bacon  to  be  the  author,  again  well  and  good. 
And  if  it  indicated  some  one  other  than  these  as  the 
author — still  well  and  good.  The  inductive  study  of 
the  works  in  question  has  been  my  only  guide.  To 
this  method  of  inquiry  I  have  been  accustomed  in  the 
study  of  physical  sciences.  It  involves  the  proposi- 
tion that  the  investigation  should  be  entirely  neutral 
towards  so-called  authority,  that  it  should  be  pur- 
sued without  any  regard  for  the  antiquity  of  that 
authority,  or  the  conservative  interests  supporting  it. 

Instead  of  Sir  Francis  Bacon,  my  investigations 
led  me  toward  the  picturesque  and  tragic  figure  of 
his  great  contemporary,  Sir  Walter  Ralegh — that 
imprisoned  and  martyred  knight,  whose  brilliant 
achievements  are  written  into  the  history  of  the 
American  Continent,  and  whose  name  is  spelled  by  all 
school  children  from  their  maps  of  North  Carolina. 

The  object  of  this  book  is  therefore  to  present  the 
evidence  that  has  led  me  to  connect  the  name  of  the 
great  Ralegh  with  the  Shakspere  plays  and  poems. 

The  evidence  consists  in  a  series  of  topical  allu- 
sions in  these  works  and  is  presented  in  Part  II  of 
this  volume.  It  is  only  necessary  to  state  here  that 
the  allusions  in  question  refer  directly  to  Sir 
Walter's  career,  and  are  substantiated  by  the  known 


PREFACE 

facts  in  his  biography.  I  believe  that  he  has  written 
into  his  dramas  his  character  and  attainments,  and 
has  portrayed  therein  his  environment  and,  to  a  con- 
siderable degree,  his  life-story  as  a  courtier,  states- 
man, mariner,  discoverer,  and  prisoner  in  the  Tower. 
The  allusions,  chronologically,  are  in  their  proper 
places.  In  a  number  of  mstances  the  dates  of  com- 
position of  certain  Plays  are  thus  determined,  or  at 
least  confirmed.  In  one  case  a  date  given  in  the 
Dictionary  of  National  Biography  is  proved  to  be 
incorrect  by  the  evidence  furnished. 

In  many  quarters  worship  of  William  Shakspere 
has  amounted  almost  to  idolatry ;  it  is  in  fact  a  relig- 
ion. To  question  his  authorship,  therefore,  may  seem 
to  many  but  little  short  of  sacrilege.  I  have  thought 
it  desirable,  accordingly,  to  present  in  the  first  part 
of  this  book  an  account  of  the  true  personality  of  the 
man,  as  shown  by  the  recorded  facts  of  his  life. 

From  the  days  of  Rowe  to  the  writer  of  yesterday 
the  study  of  the  works  of  the  world's  greatest 
dramatist  has  involved  the  consideration  of  problems 
that  have  perplexed  and  nonplussed  the  brightest 
minds.  Hence  the  prodigious  literature  which  has 
accumulated  concerning  these  problems.  If  the 
laurel  is  to  be  bestowed  on  one  of  England's  greatest 
heroes,  numerous  lines  of  inquiry  of  a  nature  varied 
and  important  will  at  once  be  opened  up.  In  the 
following  pages  I  have  made  no  effort  to  pursue  such 
lines  of  inquiry,  but  have  confined  myself  to  the 
presentation  of  the  evidence  itself. 

Henry  Pembeeton,  Je. 


CONTENTS 


PART  I 

CHAPTER  PAGE 

I.  The  Social  Environment  op  William  Shakspere 

IN  London 1 

The  Known  Facts  of  Shakspere's  Life 8 

II.  Further  Light  on  Shakspere's  Environment  in 

London — The  Authorship 26 

III.  The  "Man  of  Straw"  in  Elizabethan  Literature  43 

On  Poet-Ape 56 

Against  ^sop  the  Stage-Player 57 

PART  II 

IV.  Concerning  Topical  Allusions 65 

V.  Sir  Walter  Ralegh 71 

VI.  Sonnets  clhi  and  cliv 79 

VII.  The  Lameness  of  "Shakespeare" 81 

VIII.  The  Countess  of  Pembroke 82 

IX.  The  Evidence  of  Despondency  and  Disappoint- 
ments IN  Life  Shown  in  the  Sonnets 85 

X.  "Shakespeare"  and  the  Sea 94 

XI.  "Shakespeare"  and  the  Beginning  of  English 

Colonial  Policy 104 

XII.  "Shakespeare"  and  the  Indies — ^The  Merchant 

of  Venice 106 

XIII.  "Shakespeare"  and  the  Indies  (Continued)....   Ill 

XIV.  "Shakespeare"  and  the  Indies  (Continued)....   119 
XV.  ".Shakespeare"  and  the  Indies  (Concluded)....   123 

XVI.  "Shakespeare"  and  the  Due  de  Biron 127 

XVII.  "Shakespeare"  and  King  James  1 135 

XVIII.  "Shakespeare"  and  King  James  I  (Continued)..  139 

vii 


CONTENTS 

XIX.  "Shakespeare"  and  King  James  I  (Continued)..  141 

XX.  "Shakespeare"  and  King  James  I  (Continued)..  147 

XXI.  "Shakespeare"  and  King  James  I  (Continued)..  150 

XXII.  Hamlet's  Soliloquy 153 

XXIII.  Measure  for  Measure 159 

XXIV.  "Shakespeare's"  Period  op  Gloom 166 

XXV.  "Shakespeare's"  Period  of  Recovered  Serenity  179 
XXVI.  Notes  on  Jonson's  Poetaster 188 

Appendix: 

Who  was  Hamlet's  Friend  and  King's  Jester  Yorick  ?  194 

As  to  Meteors  and  Meteoric  Showers;  Some  Over- 
looked Items  of  Interest  in  Hamlet  and  Julius 
C^SAR 200 

The  "Star  that's  Westward  from  the  Pole" 213 

The  First  and  Second  Quartos  of  Hamlet,  the  Son- 
nets, and  the  Year  1601 220 

Topical  Allusions  in  the  Sonnets,  and  the  Identity 
of  the  Person  to  Whom  the  Sonnets  were  Ad- 
dressed   226 

Concerning  "The  Yeoman  of  the  Wardrobe" 236 


ILLUSTRATIONS 

PAGE 

Sir  Walter  Ralegh  (from  a  portrait  formerly  in  the  possession 
of  his  great-granddaughter) Frontispiece 

William  Shakspere  (The  Droeshout  Portrait) 1 

Inscription  on  Bust  of  Shakspere 62 

Sir  Walter  Ralegh 110 

Henry,  Prince  of  Wales 150 

Sir  Walter  Ralegh  (Engraved  by  Vaughan) 158 


PART  I 

WILLIAM  SHAKSPERE 

IN 

STRATFORD  AND  LONDON 


TO  THE  READER 

This  figure  that  thou  here  seest  put. 
It  was  for  gentle  Shakespeare  cut; 
Wherein  the  Graver  had  a  strife 
With  Nature  to  out-doo  the  life: 
O,  could  he  but  have  drawne  his  wit 
As  well  in  brasse,  as  he  hath  hit 
His  face;  the  Print  would  then  surpasse 
All,  that  was  ever  writ  in  brasse. 
But,  since  he  cannot,  Reader,  looke 
Not  on  his  Picture,  but  his  Booke. 
B.  I. 

Verse  by  Ben  Jonson  accompanying  the  portrait  in  the 
First  Folio  Shakspere. 


FROM    THE    FIRST    FOLIO,    ENGRAVED    BY    MARTIN    DROESHOUT 


SHAKSPERE 


AND 

SIR  WALTER  RALEGH 

CHAPTER  I 

The  Social  Environment  of  William  Shakspeee 
IN  London 

The  object  of  this  introductory  chapter  is  to 
present  evidence  showing  that  nearly  all  the  biogra- 
phies of  William  Shakspere  are  open  to  criticism  in 
that  they  give  an  inaccurate  account  of  his  life; 
that  they  disregard  the  contemporary  evidence  re- 
garding him;  and  they  present  a  picture  of  his  en- 
vironment that  is  sure  to  mislead  the  general  reader. 

Macaulay  used  the  expression  "  lues  Boswelliana  " 
(the  Boswellian  disease,  or  infection),  referring  to 
the  well-known  practice  of  James  Boswell,  in  his 
Life  of  Dr.  Johnson,  of  apotheosizing  the  old  lexi- 
cographer. This  tendency  to  extol  the  man  whose 
Life  is  offered  to  us  is  common  to  many  biographers. 
But  in  the  biography  of  no  man  is  this  unscientific 
method  of  writing  so  pronounced  as  it  is  in  that 
of  Shakspere.  In  discussing  it  I  shall  confine  myself 
to  one  point :  the  examination  into  Shakspere's  posi- 
tion in  London,  the  city  in  which  he  spent  nearly  all 
his  active  life. 

There  are  four  sources  of  information  open  to  us 
in    this    inquiry.      These   are    (1)    tradition;    (2) 

1 


SHAKSPERE  AND  SIR  WALTER  RALEGH 

allusions  by  contemporary  writers  and  poets ; 
(3)  inferences  derived  from  the  Shaksperean  dramas 
and  poems;  and  (4)  the  actual  facts  of  his  life,  as 
shown  by  contemporary  documents. 

Strange  to  say,  these  last-mentioned  facts  obtained 
only  by  long  and  exhaustive  investigation,  are,  for 
the  greater  part,  tacitly  ignored  by  his  biographers, 
who  rely  almost  entirely  upon  the  first  three  of  the 
above-mentioned  sources  of  information.  A  brief 
consideration  of  this  evidence  is  therefore  necessary. 

Concerning  the  first  (tradition)  it  must  be  said 
that  the  information  derived  therefrom  is  of  a 
character  the  reverse  of  flattering. 

We  read,  for  instance,  of  Shakspere,  lying  drunk 
all  night,  under  a  certain  tree,  after  a  carouse  with 
some  rustics  of  the  neighboring  village,  Bidford ; 
we  hear  of  his  having  made  a  lampoon  upon  Sir 
Thomas  Lucy,  who  had  him  oft  whipped  and  some- 
times imprisoned;  we  are  told  that  upon  coming  to 
London  he  served  in  a  very  mean  position  at  the 
theatre,  holding  horses  at  the  theatre  door  and  act- 
ing as  call  boy  for  the  actors — and  so  on. 

Concerning  these  traditions  all  that  need  be  said 
is  that  while  smoke  does  usually  indicate  some  fire, 
yet,  inasmuch  as  they  are  traditions  only,  and  were 
recorded  two  or  three  generations  after  his  time,  it 
would  be  unsafe  to  rely  upon  them  as  entirely  trust- 
worthy premises  from  which  to  draw  conclusions.  I 
pass,  therefore,  to  the  second  of  the  above-mentioned 
sources  of  information :  the  allusions  to  him  by  con- 
temporary writers.  Most  of  these  have  been  col- 
lected by  Ingleby,  in  his  Centurie  of  Prayse.    While 

2 


SOCIAL  ENVIRONMENT  IN  LONDON 

we  are  told  therein  that  Shakspere  was  honey- 
tongued,  was  mellifluous,  that  he  had  an  enchanting 
quill,  etc.,  we  are  furaished,  really,  with  no  actual 
knowledge  as  to  his  personal  life.  One  could  write 
such  a  series  of  odes  or  addresses  to'  Homer,  for 
instance,  without  having  any  knowledge  of  the  facts 
of  the  life  of  the  author — or  authors — of  the  Iliad. 
Ingleby,  himself,  in  the  "  Forespeech  "  to  his  book, 
states :  "  The  iteration  of  the  same  vapid  and  aff*ected 
compliments,  couched  in  conventional  terms,  from 
writers  of  the  first  two  periods,  comparing 
Shakspere's  '  tongue,'  '  pen,'  or  '  vein,'  to  silver, 
honey,  sugar,  or  nectar,  while  they  ignore  his  greater 
and  distinguishing  qualities,  is  expressly  significant. 
It  is  plain,  for  one  thing,  that  the  bard  of  our 
admiration  was  unknown  to  the  men  o'f  that  age." 

In  like  manner,  Mr.  F.  G.  Fleay,  speaking  of  the 
same  allusions,  says :  "  They  consist  almost  entirely 
of  slight  references  to  his  (Shakspere's)  published 
works,  and  have  no  bearing  of  importance  on  his 
career.  Nor,  indeed,  have  we  any  extended  material 
of  any  kind  to  aid  us  in  this  investigation.  Nor  can 
he  be  traced  in  any  personal  contact  beyond  a  very 
limited  circle,  although  fanciful  might-have-beens, 
largely  indulged  in  by  his  biographers,  might  at  first 
lead  us  to  an  opposite  conclusion."  Howard  Staun- 
ton, in  his  Life  of  Shakspere  prefixed  to  his  edition 
of  the  Dramas,  tells  us :  "  Nor  do  the  commendatory 
effusions  of  which  his  contemporaries  and  immediate 
successors  made  him  the  object,  imply  that  their 
writers  knew  aught  of  him  except  as  a  poet." 

It  is  thus  evident  that  this  source  of  information, 
3 


SHAKSPERE  AND  SIR  WALTER  RALEGH 

from  which  we  might  have  expected  so  much,  is 
strangely  barren,  considering  the  length  of  time  he 
lived  in  London  and  the  popularity  his  Plays  en- 
joyed in  that  city.  There  remain,  therefore,  the 
two  other  sources  of  information  I  have  referred  to, 
•viz.,  the  inferences  derived  from  the  character  of 
the  Plays  and  Poems,  and  the  actual  historical 
facts  of  his  life.  It  Avill  be  found  that  these  two 
are  irreconcilable,  and,  indeed,  contradictory — a 
fact  which  the  writers  of  his  biography  almost 
ignore. 

When  we  examine  the  works  of  Shakspere,  we  meet 
at  once  with  testimony  of  the  most  direct,  positive, 
and  reliable  character.  We  find  therein  that  the 
author  was  undoubtedly  a  man  of  culture,  and  one 
perfectly  familiar  with  the  manners  and  customs  of 
cultured  people.  No  aphorism  was  ever  written 
that  is  truer  than  that  of  BufFon:  "  Le  style  est 
VTiomme  meme."  The  children  of  an  author's  brain, 
more  even  than  his  own  descendants,  are  truly  indica- 
tive of  the  character  of  their  parentage,  for  the 
excellent  reason  that  they  have  sprung  from  him 
alone.  When  we  examine  the  Shakspere  Plays, 
we  find,  accordingly,  that  the  author  must  have 
been  in  close  association  with  the  nobility  and  the 
Court  of  Elizabeth  and  James.  Every  one  of  his 
Plays — The  Merry  Wives  of  Windsor  excepted — 
is  either  placed  immediately  in  the  Court,  or  else 
portrays  Court  life  through  the  introduction  of 
Lords,  Dukes,  and  other  noblemen.  I  doubt  if  there 
can  be  found  in  any  instance  a  breach  of  what  may 
be  termed  the  technical  etiquette  of  Court  life,  as 

4 


SOCIAL  ENVIRONMENT  IN  LONDON 

depicted  in  these  Dramas.  Kings  and  Queens, 
Princes  and  Princesses,  Lords  Chamberlain,  Bishops 
and  dignitaries  of  all  kinds  swarm  in  these  scenes; 
and  invariably,  the  language  given  to  these  Kings, 
Princes,  and  noblemen  is  peculiarly  appropriate. 
The  general  air  of  culture,  the  high  breeding,  and 
the  aristocratic  character  of  Court  life  are  so 
clearly  presented  to  us  that  but  one  conclusion 
is  derivable :  The  style  is  the  very  man  himself. 

In  the  Poems  and  Sonnets  we  find  the  same  evi- 
dence. Venus  and  Adonis,  published  in  1593,  was 
dedicated  to  the  Earl  of  Southampton.  "  The  tone 
of  its  dedication,"  says  one  critic,  "  is  that  of  one 
well-bred  man  addressing  another,"  The  author 
takes  for  granted  that  it  was  in  his  power  to  honor 
that  nobleman — ("  I  vow  to  take  advantage  of  all 
idle  hours  till  I  have  honored  you  with  some  graver 
labor.")  In  Lucrece,  again,  as  Professor  Herford 
remarks,  "  the  terms  of  the  dedication  show  that  the 
relation  of  patron  (the  Earl  of  Southampton)  and 
protege  had  ripened  into  one  of  warm  and  admiring 
friendship  on  both  sides." 

In  the  Sonnets  we  find  still  stronger  evidence. 
Whether  these  beautiful  Poems  were  addressed  to 
the  Earl  of  Southampton  or  the  Earl  of  Pembroke 
is  a  question  still  under  discussion,  and  one  that  need 
not  here  be  labored ;  but,  from  the  internal  evidence 
of  the  Sonnets  themselves,  there  can  be  no  doubt 
that  the  addressee  was  a  man  of  liigh  rank.  On 
reading  them  we  find  that  the  author  addresses  the 
nobleman  in  question  in  terms  indicative  of  the  closest 
and  most  affectionate  nature — an  intimacy  of  such 

5 


SHAKSPERE  AND  SIR  WALTER  RALEGH 

a  remarkable  character,  indeed,  that  we,  with  our 
modern  views,  find  it  difficult  to  understand  how  one 
man  of  Anglo-Saxon  extraction  could  so  write  to  an- 
other man.  In  the  first  seventeen  Sonnets  this  young 
scion  of  a  noble  house  is  urged  to  marry  and  beget 
children.  In  the  tenth  Sonnet  a  specific  and  personal 
reason  is  given  for  urging  him  to  become  a  father : 

"  Make  thee  another  self,  for  love  of  me/' 

— the  "  me  "  being  the  author,  Shakspere.  Note, 
moreover,  the  language  in  which  he  addresses  this 
nobleman  throughout.  He  terms  him  "  dear  heart," 
"  my  love,"  "  my  lovely  boy,"  "  my  next  self,"  and 
uses  repeatedly  expressions  of  a  similar  nature, 
showing  the  close  relations  existing  between  them. 

In  view  of  this  testimony  from  the  Dramas  and 
Poems,  it  becomes  apparent  that  the  biographers  of 
Shakspere  have  chosen  to  base  their  views  as  to  his 
position  and  environment  on  evidence  inferred  solely 
from  this  literature;  and,  further,  that  they  have 
persistently  ignored  or  distorted  the  facts  estab- 
lished by  the  contemporary  documents  that  have 
come  down  to  us.  This  apotheosizing  of  the  man 
became  the  vogue  about  the  middle  of  the  eighteenth 
century,  and  has  continued  with  undiminished  fervor 
to  the  present  day.  Richard  Grant  White  charac- 
terized this  as  a  "  stubborn  and  unwise  idolatry  " ; 
and  Halliwell-Phillipps,  also,  protested  against  the 
temptation  to  illustrate  his  life  "  by  his  writings,  or 
to  decipher  his  character  or  sensibilities  through 
their  media."  Later  in  his  preface  he  refers  to  "  the 
inclination  which  is  not  unfrequently  manifested  for 

6 


SOCIAL  ENVIRONMENT  IN  LONDON 

the  obliteration  of  the  little  that  is  known,  and  for 
the  establishment  of  a  mythical  Shakespeare." 

As  an  illustration  of  this  unscientific  method  of 
writing  we  find  Richard  Grant  White  himself  stating 
that  Shakspere's  daughters  could  not  marry  men 
"  of  the  position  to  which  their  father  had  raised 
himself."  George  Brandes,  in  his  William 
Shakespeare,  states:  "On  February  21,  1587,  Sir 
Philip  Sidney  was  buried  at  St.  Paul's  Cathedral 
the  Queen  herself  was  there,  and  sO'  no 
doubt  was  Shakespeare  " — leading  us,  thereby,  to 
infer  that  Shakspere  attended  the  funeral  in  com- 
pany with  the  Queen.  Again,  Brandes  informs  us 
that  Shakspere  "  was  presently  discovered  by  men 
like  Southampton  and  Pembroke,  cordially  received 
into  their  refined  and  cultivated  circles,  and,  in  all 
probability,  presented  to  the  ladies  of  these  noble 
families."  Many  more  examples  of  similar  charac- 
ter might  be  cited. 

All  this,  of  course,  is  wholly  mythical,  and  is  not 
supported  by  a  thread  of  contemporary  evidence 
in  the  form  of  documents  that  relate  to  the  personal 
life  of  the  Stratfordian.  Such  a  method  of  writing 
biography  supports  the  statement  of  Dr.  Furness 
(in  one  of  his  Variorum  volumes),  that  imagination 
is  a  constant  factor  in  the  solution  of  problems  con- 
nected with  Shakspere  as  a  breather  of  this  world. 

The  powerful  effect  of  the  Boswellian  bacillus 
upon  the  minds  of  liis  biographers  becomes  evident 
when  we  contrast  the  Life  they  give  us  with  the 
actual  facts  of  his  career;  and  to'  the  consideration 
of  these  facts  I  now  turn. 

7 


SHAKSPERE  AND  SIR  WALTER  RALEGH 

THE  KNOWN  FACTS  OF   SHAKSPERE's  LIFE 

Of  all  the  biographers  of  Shakspere,  Halliwell- 
Phillipps  is  easily  first  in  rank  as  a  patient,  thor- 
ough, and  careful  investigator  into  the  Tudor-Stuart 
documents  that  relate  to  the  dramatist's  life.  The 
number  of  these  examined  by  him  must  have 
amounted  to  thousands.  This  study  was  practically 
his  life's  work;  and  his  volume.  The  Outlines  of  the 
Life  of  Shakespeare,  is  still  the  main  source  whence 
the  facts  of  the  life  must  be  obtained.  Much  of 
his  book  deals,  of  course,  with  the  examination  of  the 
Plays  and  Poems,  with  the  genealogical  data  of  the 
family,  and  with  the  business  transactions,  real 
estate  investments  and  lawsuits  in  which  Shakspere 
was  interested.  I  take  no  note  of  these,  since  they 
have  no  bearing  on  the  point  at  issue:  his  social 
relations.  The  facts  that  concern  us,  it  will  be 
found,  are  scarcely  over  a  dozen  in  number.  They 
are  entirely  concordant,  in  that  they  reveal  Shak- 
spere to  us  as  associating  with  actors  only.  In  spite 
of  all  that  his  biographers  have  written,  there  can- 
not be  produced  to-day  a  single  document  of  his  time, 
aside  perhaps  from  the  prefatory  matter  connected 
with  his  works,  showing  him  ever  to  have  moved  in 
circles  other  than  these.  This  surprising  fact,  as  I 
have  shown,  is  ignored  by  his  biographers,  who  seem 
to  take  delight  in  "  obliterating  the  little  that  is 
known  "  and  in  establisliing  "  a  mythical  Shakspere." 

Stratford,  in  the  time  of  Elizabeth,  was  a  village 
of  some  1200  or  1500  inhabitants.  In  the  Life  of 
David  GarricJc,  who  visited  the  town  in  1769,  the  in- 

8 


SOCIAL  ENVIRONMENT  IN  LONDON 

habitants  are  called  "  bumpkins  "  and  "  boors,"  and 
the  town  itself,  "  the  most  dirty,  unseemly,  ill-paved, 
and  wretched  looking  in  all  Britain." 

This  was  two  centuries  after  Shakspere's  child- 
hood. Considering  the  general  advance  in  England's 
civilization  during  these  two  centuries,  there  can  be 
no  hesitancy  in  accepting  his  account  as  a  true 
description  of  Stratford  in  the  Elizabethan  era. 

The  inhabitants  were,  in  the  main,  grossly  illit- 
erate. In  1565  the  aldermen  and  burgesses  of  the 
town  had  occasion  to  execute  a  public  document 
which  is  still  extant. 

Six  only,  of  the  nineteen  signers,  could  write  their 
names ;  the  other  thirteen  out  of  the  nineteen  made 
their  marks.  "  These,  of  course,"  said  Mr.  Edwin 
Reed,  speaking  of  the  nineteen  signers,  "  were  picked 
men,  among  whom  the  ratio  of  literacy  must  have 
been  more  favorable  than  it  was  in  the  community 
at  large."  Among  the  thirteen  who  were  unable 
to  write  even  their  names  we  find  John  Shakspere, 
the  father  of  William.  "  Both  of  William's 
parents,"  says  Halliwell-Pliillipps,  "  were  abso- 
lutely illiterate."  The  discovery  of  this  fact  was 
so  much  of  a  surprise,  and  so  opposed  to  prevailing 
ideas,  that  Charles  Knight  in  the  first  edition  of 
his  biography  contested  it,  but  in  his  second  edition 
w^as  compelled  to  admit  it. 

It  was  from  this  environment,  probably  in  1585- 
87,  that  William  Shakspere  took  his  departure  for 
London.  "  Removed  prematurely  from  school," 
says  Halliwell-Phillipps,  "  residing  with  illiterate 
relatives  in  a  bookless  neighborhood,  thrown  into  the 

9 


SHAKSPERE  AND  SIR  WALTER  RALEGH 

midst  of  occupations  adverse  to  scholastic  progress 
— it  is  difficult  to  believe  that  when  he  first  left 
Stratford  he  was  not  all  but  destitute  of  polished 
accomplishments."  The  question  as  to  his  learning 
does  not  interest  us  here ;  but  his  biographer's  opin- 
ion regarding  his  lack  of  "  polished  accomplish- 
ments "  is  noteworthy. 

Of  his  life  in  London  there  have  been  unearthed, 
as  I  have  said,  about  a  dozen  facts,  which  I  now  give 
as  concisely  as  possible. 

In  1592  Robert  Greene,  in  his  Groat sworth  of 
Wit,  attacks  a  certain  "  upstart  crow,"  who,  "  with 
his  Tyger's  heart  wrapt  in  a  Player's  hide,"  is,  in 
his  own  conceit,  "  the  only  Shake-scene  in  a  coun- 
trye."  ^  This  well-known  passage  you  will  find  in 
every  biography  of  Shakspere,  but  you  will  not  find 
in  every  biography  the  statement  that,  in  the  para- 
graphs immediately  following,  Greene  classes 
"  Shake-scene  "  with  "  rude  grooms  "  and  "  peas- 
ants." This  suppression  of  the  truth  by  these  biog- 
raphers is  bad  enough ;  but  in  their  treatment  of  an- 
other work  relating  to  the  same  subject,  they  go  still 
farther  and  actually  distort  evidence  relating  to  him. 

A  few  months  after  Greene's  pamphlet  was  writ- 
ten, Henry  Chettlc  wrote  his  Kind-Harts  Dreame, 
in  the  preface  to  which  he  apologizes  to  one  drama- 
tist to  whom  Greene  had  addressed  his  Groatsxvorth 
of  Wit.  Chettle  makes  no  reference  whatever  to 
Shakspere,  and  yet  a  long  line  of  biographers  and 
critics,  from  the  time  of  Malone  to  the  present  day, 

^This  parodies  the  line  in  3  Henry  VI  (I,  iv,  137); 
"  O  tiger's  heart  wrapp'd  in  a  woman's  hide !  " 

10 


SOCIAL  ENVIRONMENT  IN  LONDON 

through  theil"  intense  desire  to  find  something  com- 
plimentary toi  Shakspere,  have  not  hesitated  to  con- 
strue Chettle's  remarks  as  referring  to  him,  thereby 
misleading  their  readers.  Mr.  Fleay  commented 
upon  this  in  his  Life  (page  111),  and,  as  he  quotes 
Chettle's  Passage,  I  give  what  he  says  on  the  sub- 
ject :  "  In  December  (1592)  Chettle  issued  his  Kind- 
Harts  Dreame,  in  which  he  apologizes  for  the  offence 
given  to  Marlowe  in  the  Groatsworth  of  Wit,  be- 
cause myself  have  seen  his  demeanor  no  less  civil 
than  he  excellent  in  the  quality  he  professes ;  be- 
sides, divers  of  worship  have  reported  his  upright- 
ness of  dealing  which  argues  his  honesty,  and  his 
facetious  grace  in  writing  which  approves  his  art. 
To  Peele  he  makes  no  apology,  nor  indeed  was  any 
required.  Shakspere  was  not  one  of  those  who  took 
offence;  they  are  expressly  stated  to  have  been  two 
of  the  three  authors  addressed  by  Greene,  the  third 
(Lodge)  not  being  in  England." 

Thus  Mr.  Fleay.  In  like  manner  Mr.  E.  T. 
Castle,  Q.C.,  in  his  book,  Shakespeare,  Bacon, 
JonsoTi,  and  Greene,  states :  "  Malone  twisted  this 
apology  of  Chettle's  (toi  one  of  the  two  playmakers 
to  whom  the  letter  was  written  and  who  had  taken 
offence)  as  an  apology  to  Shakespeare.  It  is  diffi- 
cult to  see  how  the  language  could  be  so  understood, 
even  by  one  of  his  most  ardent  admirers.  The  letter 
was  not  addressed  to  Shakespeare;  he  was  not  one 
of  the  playwriters ;  he  was  a  pretender  in  Greene's 
eyes ;  and,  as  far  as  we  can  see,  he  was  severely  left 
alone  by  Chettle  .  .  .  Malone,  Stevens,  Dyce, 
Collier,  Halliwell,  Knight,  and  a  host  of  minor  au- 

11 


SHAKSPERE  AND  SIR  WALTER  RALEGH 

thors  so  blinded  by  their  admiration  for  Shakespeare 
that  they  cannot  read  a  simple  document  correctly." 

Mr.  George  Greenwood  in  his  Shakespeare  Prob- 
lem Re-stated,  page  318,  referring  to  the  practice  of 
many  of  the  biographers  of  dehberately  inserting 
Shakspere's  name  in  Chettle's  passage,  remarks : 
"  A  more  dishonest  method  of  writing  biography 
than  this  can  hardly  be  imagined."  I  may  add  that 
Greene  explicitly  stated  that  the  Tyger's  heart  was 
wrapped  in  a  Player's  hide;  whereas  the  three  men 
addressed  by  Greene  were  not  players. 

Returning  to  our  hst  of  known  facts  in 
Shakspere's  life,  we  come  to  the  following  items : 

Li  March,  1595,  Shakspere  and  his  friends, 
Burbage  and  Kemp,  were  paid  for  acting  on  the 
previous  December  before  the  Queen  at  Greenwich. 

In  1598  he  acted  in  Jonson's  Play,  Every  Man  in 
His  Humour. 

Towards  the  close  of  the  year  1599  he  made  appli- 
cation at  Herald's  College  for  the  grant  to  his  father 
of  a  coat-of-arms.    Of  this  I  have  more  to  say  below. 

On  March  13,  1601,  John  INIanningham,  a  barris- 
ter-at-law  of  the  Middle  Temple,  makes  an  entry  in 
his  Diary  of  a  story  of  Shakspere  then  current  in 
London :  "  Upon  a  time  when  Burbidge  played 
Richard  the  Third  there  was  a  citizen  gone  so  far 
in  liking  with  him  that  before  she  went  from  the 
play  she  appointed  him  to  come  that  night  unto  her 
by  the  name  of  Richard  the  Third.  Shakespeare 
hearing  their  conclusion  went  before,  was  enter- 
tained, and  at  his  game  ere  Burbidge  came.  Then 
message  being  brought  that  Richard  the  Tliird  was 

12 


SOCIAL  ENVIRONMENT  IN  LONDON 

at  the  door  Shakespeare  caused  return  to  be  made 
that  William  the  Conqueror  was  before  Richard  the 
Third.     Shakespeare's  name  William." 

In  December,  1601,  a  Play,  The  Return  from 
Parnassus,  was  written.  It  is  the  third  Play  of  a 
Trilogy.  The  author  of  the  Play  is  unknown.  He 
introduces  on  the  stage,  two  well-known  actors  of  the 
day,  Burbage  and  Kemp,  and  places  in  the  mouth  of 
Kemp  the  following  words :  "  Why  here's  our  fellow 
Shakespeare  puts  them  all  downe,  aye  and  Ben 
Jonson  too.  O  that  Ben  Jonson  is  a  pestilent  fellow, 
he  brought  up  Horace  giving  the  poets  a  pill,  but  our 
fellow  Shakespeare  hath  given  him  a  purge  that  made 
him  bewray  his  credit."  Kemp  is  described  by  the 
author  as  a  clown  and  buffoon  who  can  "make  a  scur- 
vey  face  " ;  and  Kemp  himself  tells  us  that  "  there's 
not  a  country  wench  that  can  dance  Sellenger's  Round 
but  can  talke  of  Dick  Burbage  and  Will  Kempe." 
It  is  a  man  of  this  character  who,  in  the  Play,  is 
twice  made  to  refer  to  Shakspere  as  "  our  fellow." 

In  1603  Shakspere  acted  in  Jonson's  play, 
Sejanus.  On  May  19,  1603,  he  was  one  of  the  nine 
actors  to  whom  a  license  was  granted  to  perform 
stage  Plays  at  the  Globe  and  elsewhere. 

On  March  15,  1604,  he  was  one  of  nine  actors 
to  each  of  whom  were  granted  four  and  one-half 
yards  of  scarlet  cloth  to  be  worn  in  the  procession 
of  King  James  on  his  entry  into  London. 

On  May  4,  1605,  one  of  Shakspere's  friends, 
Augustine  Phillips,  a  common  actor  of  the  day,  made 
his  will,  in  which  he  leaves  thirty  shillings  to  "  my 
fellow  Shakspere." 

13 


SHAKSPERE  AND  SIR  WALTER  RALEGH 

John  Davies,  of  Hereford,  a  writing  master  and 
poet,  in  three  of  liis  poems  refers  to  Shakspere.  In 
one  of  these,  published  in  1610,  he  addresses  him  as 
"  our  English  Terence,  Mr.  Will  Shakespeare,"  and 
states  that  he  played  "  some  Kingly  parts  in  sport." 
The  words  "  in  sport  "  indicate  either  that  Davies 
was  referring  to'  some  one  other  than  Shakspere,  or 
that  he  knew  little,  if  anything,  of  him.  For,  in 
1610,  Shakspere  had  been  a  professional  actor  for 
at  least  sixteen  years. 

Previously,  in  1603  and  in  1605,  Davies,  in  re- 
ferring to  actors,  places  in  the  margin  of  his  poems 
the  initials,  "  R.  B.  &  W.  S.,"  evidently  referring  to 
Richard  Burbage  and  William  Shakspere,  of  whom 
he  speaks  kindly.  Davies  draws  no  distinction  be- 
tween these  two,  and  evidently  regards  them  as  be- 
ing men  of  the  same  degree. 

On  March  13,  1613,  the  steward  of  the  sixth 
Earl  of  Rutland  paid  "  Mr.  Shakespeare  "  forty- 
four  shillings  in  gold  for  designing  an  impresa  (an 
heraldic  device  to  be  inscribed  on  a  shield),  and 
to  Shakspere's  friend,  Burbage,  the  same  steward 
paid  forty-four  shillings  in  gold  for  making  and 
painting  the  device. 

On  March  25,  1616,  Shakspere  executed  his  last 
will  and  testament.  After  disposing  of  his  estate  and 
remembering  some  of  the  country  folk  at  Stratford, 
he  leaves  legacies  to  three  actors  in  London,  "  my 
fellows  Richard  Burbage,  John  Hemmings  and 
Henry  Cundell." 

At  some  date  after  Shakspere's  death,  Jonson,  in 
his  Discoveries,  comments  on  the  statement  of  the 

14 


SOCIAL  ENVIRONMENT  IN  LONDON 

actors  that  Shakspere  never  blotted  out  a  line,  and 
adds  that  he  "  loved  the  man  and  honored  his  mem- 
ory on  this  side  of  idolatry  as  much  as  any."  Con- 
sidering Jonson^s  critical  ability,  this  passage  is 
inexplicable  from  whatever  point  it  may  be  viewed; 
for,  in  a  decidedly  patronizing  tone,  he  goes  on  to'  say 
that  Shakspere  "  flowed  with  that  facility  that  some- 
times it  was  necessary  that  he  should  be  stopped," 
and  concludes  his  remarks  upon  the  author  of  Hamlet 
by  stating  that  "  he  redeemed  his  vices  with  his 
virtues."  "  There  was  ever  more  in  him  to  be  praised 
than  to  be  pardoned."  This  passage,  it  is  true,  like 
most  of  those  in  the  Discoveries,  is  drawn  from  the 
Classics  (in  this  instance  from  Seneca  the  elder). 
But  it  is  none  the  less  remarkable  that  Jonson  should 
have  made  the  citation  as  applicable  to  Shakspere. 
In  1623  was  published  the  First  Folio — the  first 
complete  collection  of  the  Shakspere  Plays.  Since 
this  first  edition  was  issued  seven  years  after 
Shakspere's  death  in  1616,  it  would  seem  that 
Shakspere  liimself  had  no  interest  in  the  preserva- 
tion of  his  dramatic  works,  in  spite  of  the  ease  and 
prosperity  of  his  last  years.  In  the  preliminary 
matter  of  the  First  Folio  there  are  twO'  addresses: 
one,  an  Epistle  Dedicatory  to  the  Earls  of  Pembroke 
and  Montgomery,  and  the  other  a  preface  addressed 
"  To  the  Great  Variety  of  Readers."  Both  of  these 
are  signed  by  two  of  Shakspere's  fellow-actors  :  John 
Hemmings  and  Henry  Condell.  In  the  Epistle  the 
two  Earls  are  stated  to  have  "  prosecuted " 
Shakspere  in  his  lifetime  "  with  so  much  favour," 
a  fact  not  corroborated  by  any  other  contemporary 

15 


SHAKSPERE  AND  SIR  WALTER  RALEGH 

evidence.  Both  of  these  addresses  are  open  to  sus- 
picion for  three  reasons.  (1)  They  are  signed,  as 
stated,  by  two  actors ;  and  yet,  as  Malone  long  ago 
showed,  in  the  writing  of  one  of  them  Jonson  cer- 
tainly had  an  important  part.  (2)  Distributed 
throughout  them  are  ten  legal  expressions,  showing 
the  writer  to  have  been  a  lawyer.  (3)  A  large  part 
of  the  Epistle  Dedicatory  is  based  upon  Pliny's  epis- 
tle dedicating  his  Natural  History  to  Vespasian. 
That  two  journeymen  actors,  whose  names  are  un- 
known to  literature,  should  have  been  the  authors  of 
this  introductory  matter,  is  therefore  extremely  un- 
likely, and  the  foregoing  statement  in  the  Epistle, 
otherwise  unconfirmed,  is  of  doubtful  authority. 

The  next  allusion  is  dated  1635.  Although  not 
contemporaneous,  it  refers  directly  to  Shakspere. 
In  a  petition  by  the  Burbages  to  the  Lord  Chamber- 
lain touching  certain  matters  relative  to  the 
ownership  of  shares  in  the  Globe  and  Blackfriars 
theatres,  they  state  that  "  To  ourselves  were  joyned 
those  deserving  men,  Shakspere,  Hemmings,  .  .  . 
Condell,  Phillips,  and  others  "  as  partners  in  the 
Globe;  and,  in  relation  to'  the  Blackfriars,  they  tell 
us  that  they  "  placed  men  players,  which  were 
Hemmings,  Condell,  Shakspere,  &c.,"  in  that  theatre. 
Evidently  they  regarded  all  these  actors,  including 
Shakspere,  as  being  men  of  the  same  class. 

The  last  allusion  we  meet  with  is  also^  of  a  date 
long  after  the  death  of  Shakspere,  being  that  of 
Fuller,  whose  Worthies  of  England  was  published 
in  1662.  In  this  work  is  a  passage  which  I  give 
below,  from  which  the  biographers  have  endeavored 

16 


SOCIAL  ENVIRONMENT  IN  LONDON 

to  lead  their  readers  to  believe  that  Shakspere  was 
frequently  present  at  the  Mermaid  Tavern,  a  noted 
resort  of  wits  and  scholars  of  the  time.  The  testi- 
mony to  this  effect,  however,  is  wholly  untrust- 
worthy, as  will  appear.  Fuller,  indeed,  makes  no 
mention  whatever  of  the  Mermaid.  Therefore,  in 
order  to  bring  Shakspere  into  this  distinguished 
company,  the  reader  will  find  that  nearly  every 
modern  biographer  combines  with  Fuller's  remarks 
the  extract  from  the  writings  of  Francis  Beaumont, 
beginning :  "  What  tilings  have  we  seen  done  at  the 
Mermaid,"  etc.  But  Beaumont  in  no  way  refers  to 
Shakspere  either  directly  or  indirectly.  Thus  we  have 
a  quotation  from  Fuller,  making  no  mention  of  the 
Mermaid,  conjoined  with  a  quotation  from  Beaumont, 
making  no  mention  of  Shakspere  ;  and  by  a  species  of 
literary  legerdemain  the  reader  is  led  to  believe  that 
Shakspere  was  a  member  of  these  gatherings  of  wits. 

Concerning  Beaumont  nothing  further  need  be 
said.  As  to  Fuller,  the  following  is  what  he  wrote 
(the  italics  are  mine)  :  "  INIany  were  the  wit-combats 
between  him  (Shakspere)  and  Ben  Jonson;  which 
two  /  beJiold  like  a  Spanish  great  galleon  and  an 
English  man-of-war,"  etc. 

Thomas  Fuller  was  born  at  Aldwinkle,  Northamp- 
tonshire, in  June,  1608.  William  Shakspere  died  in 
April,  1616,  and  was  not  in  London,  as  far  as  we 
know,  after  1614,  when  Fuller  was  six  years  old. 
Fuller's  father  was  rector  of  St.  Peter's,  in  Ald- 
winkle. The  boy  was  sent  to  school  in  his  native 
village,  and  continued  at  that  school  for  four  years. 
Ifc  is  therefore  all  but  certain  that  he  was  not  in 
2  17 


SHAKSPERE  AND  SIR  WALTER  RALEGH 

London  during  Shakspere's  lifetime.  But  even  had 
he  been  there  it  would  have  been  absurd  to  suppose 
that  a  child  of  these  tender  years  could  have  been 
present  at  the  meetings  at  the  Mermaid  Tavern. 
Therefore  when  we  read  in  Fuller's  book  published 
nearly  half  a  century  later  (1662),  "I  behold" 
Shakspere,  etc.,  it  is  clear  that  he  was  speaking  fig- 
uratively. There  is  no  evidence  of  any  kind  showing 
that  Shakspere  ever  set  foot  in  the  Mermaid.  Fuller 
never  said  that  Shakspere  was  there,  nor  did  any  one 
else  say  so.  The  whole  idea  is,  to  use  Mr.  Fleay's 
words,  one  of  the  "  fanciful  might-have-beens  so 
largely  indulged  in  by  his  biographers." 

The  foregoing  comprises  the  sum  total  of  our 
knowledge  on  the  subject.  I  have  not,  knowingly, 
omitted  any  fact  relating  to  his  social  environment ; 
nor  have  I  picked  out,  or  selected,  from  other  mate- 
rial— for  there  is  no  other  material.  What  has  been 
given  represents  all  that  is  known  of  his  environment 
in  London,  as  shown  by  the  extant  documents  of  his 
time.  And  from  these  reliable  sources  it  becomes  evi- 
dent that  Shakspere  is  continually  found  in  close 
and  intimate  association  with  the  common  actors  of 
the  day ;  and,  further,  that  no  reliable  evidence  can 
be  produced  shoAving  that  he  ever  was  present  in 
circles  higher  than  these. 

A  few  words,  therefore,  are  necessary  regarding 
the  position  of  an  actor  in  the  Tudor-Stuart  period. 
As  Halliwell-Phillipps  tells  us,  actors  then  occupied 
an. inferior  position  in  society,  and  in  many  quarters 
even  the  vocation  of  a  dramatic  writer  was  consid- 
ered scarcely  respectable.  On  page  193  of  his  Out- 
lines he  states  that  the  players  "  were  then  regarded 

18 


SOCIAL  ENVIRONMENT  IN  LONDON 

in  about  the  same  light  as  jugglers  and  buffoons." 
The  impassable  barrier  separating  the  nobleman 
from  the  professional  actor,  such  as  Shakspere  was, 
is  well  shown  by  an  incident  that  occurred  in  an  en- 
tertainment given  at  Gray's  Inn  in  1594.  A  distin- 
guished company  was  present  that  evening,  and,  as 
Halliwell-Phillipps  tells,  "  professional  actors  were 
engaged  for  the  representation  of  the  Comedy  of 
Errors,  and,  although  their  names  are  not  men- 
tioned, it  may  be  safely  inferred  that  the  Play  was 
acted  by  the  Lord  Chamberlain's  Company,  that  to 
which  Shakspere  was  then  attached,  and  the  owners 
of  the  copyright."  The  performance  ended  disas- 
trously in  confusion  and  disorder.  On  the  next 
evening  a  mock  trial  was  held  in  which  one  of  the 
members  of  Graj^'s  Inn  was  tried  for  "  having 
foisted  a  Company  of  base  and  common  fellows  upon 
us  to  make  up  our  disorders."  Under  the  influence 
of  the  BoswelHan  bacillus,  Halliwell-Phillipps  re- 
marks that  "  it  is  hardly  pleasant  to  be  told  "  that 
Shakspere's  Company  was  described  as  a  company  of 
base  and  common  fellows.  On  the  contrai'}'^,  to  the  in- 
quirer seeking  truth  it  is  valuable  information  that 
we  obtain  from  contemporary  evidence  as  to  the  es- 
timation in  which  Shakspere's  personal  friends  were 
held  by  gentlemen  and  noblemen  of  Gray's  Inn. 

In  the  year  1605  we  find  like  testimony.  In  a  let- 
ter now  preserved  at  Hatfield,  regarding  a  revival  of 
hove's  hahor's  Lost,  addressed  by  Sir  Walter  Cope 
"  To  the  right  honourable  the  Lorde  Vycount  Cran- 
bourne  at  the  Courte,"Sir  Walter  writes:  "Sir: — I 
have  sent  and  bene  thys  morning  huntyng  for  play- 
ers, juglers,  and  such  kinde  of  creaturs,  but  fynde 

19 


SHAKSPERE  AND  SIR  WALTER  RALEGH 

them  hard  to  fynde,  wherefore  leaving  notes  for  them 
to  seeke  me,  Burbage  ys  come  and  says,"  etc.,  etc. 

Here  we  have  William  Shakspere's  lifelong  friend, 
Richard  Burbage,  classed  by  a  nobleman  with  "  jug- 
lers  and  such  kinde  of  creatures,"  an  undoubted 
proof  of  the  low  rank  occupied  by  the  common  actor 
of  that  day  in  the  eyes  of  the  nobility. 

Lest  it  be  thought  that  I  have  laid  undue  stress 
upon  the  two  examples  just  cited,  I  give  another, 
from  Lodge's  Illustrations,  Vol.  II.,  page  580, 
wherein  we  have  an  English  Lord's  opinion  of  a  cer- 
tain respectable  merchant  of  the  time,  who'  was 
a  prospective  neighbor  of  his.  It  is  a  letter  from 
Sir  Fulke  Greville,  dated  "  From  the  Court  at  Oat- 
lands,  Sept.  23,  1602,  To  the  right  honourable  the 
Countess  of  Shrewsbury."  "  Since  my  return  from 
Plymouth  I  understand  my  Lord  Marquis  hath 
offered  his  house  for  sale,  and  there  is  one,  Swinner- 
ton,  a  merchant  that  hath  engaged  himself  to  deal 
for  it.  We,  your  poor  neighbours,  would  think  our 
dwellings  desolate  without  you,  and  conceive  your 
Ladyship  would  not  willingly  become  a  tenant  to 
such  a  fellow."  To'  this  letter  Lodge  appends  the 
following  foot-note  regarding  this  "  fellow  "  Swin- 
nerton,  and  gives  an  account  of  him  which  I  con- 
dense :  "  He  was  descended  fromi  a  reputable  family 
seated  at  Oswestry,  in  Shropshire.  He  was  ap- 
pointed Sheriff  of  London  this  year;  was  knighted 
at  Whitehall  on  the  24th  of  July  in  the  next.  The 
contempt  with  which  Sir  Fulke  Greville  speaks  of 
this  respectable  person,  induced  me  to  give  so  par- 
ticular account  of  him,  as  it  affords  a  remarkable 
instance  of  the  distance  at  which  the  nobility  then 

20 


SOCIAL  ENVIRONMENT  IN  LONDON 

kept  themselves  from  even  the  first  members  of  the 
commercial  order." 

Far  below  these  merchants,  of  course,  were  the 
common  actors,  with  whom  Shakspere  lived,  moved, 
and  had  his  being. 

Let  us  glance  for  a  moment  at  the  applications 
made  by  several  of  these  actors,  including  Shakspere, 
for  coats-of-arms. 

In  the  Nineteenth  Century  and  After  for  May, 
1906,  page  763,  Mr.  Sidney  Lee  has  an  article  in 
which  he  gives  extracts  from  two  recently-discovered 
manuscript  books  written  circa  1599.  He  states: 
'•  The  censor's  general  allegation  is  that  men  of  low 
birth  and  undignified  employment  were  corruptly 
suffered  by  the  heralds  to  credit  themselves  with 
noble  or  highly  aristocratic  descent,  and  to  bear, 
in  consideration  of  large  money  payments,  coat 
armour  of  respectable  antiquity."  A  long  list  of 
the  surnames  of  these  men  is  given.  One  of  them 
was  the  son  of  a  peddler;  another  was  a  seller  of 
stockings ;  another  was  a  haberdasher.  The  fourth 
name  in  the  list  is  that  of  Shakspere. 

In  the  other  manuscript  book  the  writer  makes  no 
mention  of  Shakspere,  but  points  his  scornful  finger 
at  two  other  actors,  Augustine  Phillips  and  Thomas 
Pope,  who  "  had  outraged  truth  and  decency  in  en- 
deavours to  secure  heraldic  badges  of  quality." 
These  actors,  Mr.  Sidney  Lee  informs  us,  were  "  two 
of  Shakspere's  closest  professional  associates."  He 
states  that  "  one  feels  regret  that  Shakspere's  name 
should  ornament  this  manuscript  treasury  of 
scandal." 

Why  Sidney  Lee  should  feel  regret  at  the  dis- 
21 


SHAKSPERE  AND  SIR  WALTER  RALEGH 

covery  of  these  important  facts  I  am  at  a  loss  to 
understand;  for  we  obtain  therefrom  new  confirma- 
tory evidence  establishing  the  reliabihty  of  all  the 
other  facts  that  have  been  discovered,  showing 
Shakspere's  close  alliance  with  these  men  who  were 
considered  of  low  degree.  Moreover,  these  docu- 
ments make  clear  how  it  was  possible  for  Shakspere 
(who,  Halliwell-Phillipps  tells  us,  was  descended  on 
both  sides  from  .  .  .  obscure  country  yeomen) 
to'  obtain  his  coat-of-arms. 

Thus  it  appears  that  from  the  year  1592,  when 
Robert  Greene  classed  "  Shake-scene "  with  rude 
grooms  and  peasants,  until  1635,  when  the  Burbages 
state  that  they  "  placed "  Shakspere  with  other 
actors  in  their  theatres,  we  have  repeated  proofs  of 
what  Emerson  called  his  obscure  and  profane  life. 
No  English  gentleman  or  nobleman  of  to-day  woiild 
use  harsher  or  more  contemptuous  expressions  re- 
garding negro  minstrels  or  circus  actors  than  did 
the  Elizabethan  men  of  rank  in  referring  to 
Shakspere's  closest  friends. 

But  the  singular  and  inexplicable  fact  is  that 
there  cannot  be  produced  any  evidence  based  upon 
contemporary  documents,  aside  from,  the  Shaks- 
perian  literature  itself  and,  perhaps,  the  matter 
prefatory  thereto,  showing  him  to  have  moved  in 
circles  other  than  these.  There  is  not  a  letter  from 
him,  not  even  a  line  of  his  handwriting,  in  existence. 
In  the  huge  mass  of  documents  reproduced  in  the 
published  volumes  of  the  Public  Record  Office;  in 
the  equally  large  collection  of  the  Historical  Manu- 
script Commission;  in  the  publications  of  the  Cam- 
den Society ;  in  the  Sidney  papers  ;  in  Lodge's  Illus- 

22 


SOCIAL  ENVIRONMENT  IN  LONDON 

trations;  in  the  letters  of  Chamberlain,  of  Carlton, 
of  Sir  Henry  Wotton,  and  of  a  host  of  other  well- 
known  writers,  no  contemporaneous  personal  allusion 
to  Shakspere  occurs.  The  vulgar  Manninghami 
anecdote  and  the  record  of  the  impress  payment, 
already  quoted,  are  the  only  exceptions  to  this 
statement.  Richard  Grant  White  gives  a  list  of 
twenty  well-known  and  prominent  men  who'  were 
his  contemporaries,  and  adds  that  "  there  is  no  proof 
whatever  that  he  was  personally  known  to  either  of 
these  men  or  to  any  others  of  less  note  among  the 
statesmen,  scholars,  soldiers  and  artists  of  his  day." 

In  order  to  meet  the  difficulties  thus  presented 
various  explanations  and  surmises  have  been  made 
by  the  biographers.  It  has  been  assumed  that  the 
evidence  showing  his  friendship  with  noblemen  has 
been  lost,  or  destroyed,  and  therefore  has  not  come 
down  to  us.  This  assumption,  however,  cannot  be 
accepted,  for  we  all  know  that  it  is  the  annals  of  the 
poor  and  lowly  that  are  "  short  and  simple,"  and  not 
the  annals  of  the  Southamptons,  the  Pembrokes,  the 
Essexes,  or  the  Montgomerys.  It  is  altogether  im- 
probable that  the  documents  showing  Shakspere's 
life  in  Court  circles  should  have  wholly  perished, 
while  those  that  only  relate  to  him  as  an  actor  should 
have  been  preserved. 

Another  argument  frequently  presented  is  that 
genius  is  exceptional;  and  that  through  and  on  ac- 
count of  his  genius  Shakspere  may  have  been  able  to 
enter  circles  that  were  closed  to  his  intimate  actor- 
friends.  But  the  total  silence  maintained  by  all 
Court  writers  of  the  day  regarding  him  cannot  be 
explained  away  by  this  hypothesis.     A  moment's 

23 


SHAKSPERE  AND  SIR  WALTER  RALEGH 

consideration  will  show  that  they  who'  present  this 
argument  simply  beg  the  question  of  fact. 

As  none  of  these  assumptions  or  explanations 
meet  the  difficulty,  we  are  confronted  with  this  anom- 
alous situation :  On  the  one  hand,  we  have  the  splen- 
did literature ;  on  the  other,  the  sordid  facts  of  the 
man'^  life.  The  Dramas  and  Poems  show  the  author 
to'  have  possessed  the  culture  and  refined  traits 
characteristic  of  such  men,  let  us  say,  as  Tennyson, 
Byron,  or  Scott;  the  facts  of  his  life  prove  him 
to  have  been  unquestionably  the  closest  friend  of 
men  of  a  low  type.  The  Poems  and  Sonnets  show 
that  Shakspere  enjoyed  the  warm  and  admiring 
friendship  of  some  of  the  most  prominent  men  in 
England.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  we  find  this  same 
Shakspere,  in  actual  life,  applying  for  a  fraudulent 
coat-of-arms  in  company  with  peddlers,  haberdash- 
ers, and  sellers  of  stockings.  Moreover,  when  he  made 
his  last  will  and  testament  in  1616,  the  only  persons 
in  London  whom  he  remembered — after  having  lived 
in  that  city  for  a  quarter  of  a  century — were  a  few 
common  actors — "  creatures,"  Sir  Walter  Cope 
styled  them.  And  in  this  ^dll  Shakspere  himself 
over  his  own  signature  calls  these  men  "  my  fellows." 

Assuredly  we  have  here  a  situation  that  is  par- 
adoxical. We  are  dealing  with  an  anomaly  that 
is  the  one  predominant  and  astounding  fact  in 
Shakspere's  life ;  a  fact  which,  undoubtedly,  should  be 
made  most  prominent,  and  which  certainly  should  not 
be  ignored  or  concealed.  And  yet  this  anomaly  is  not 
even  alluded  to  by  most  of  his  biographers.  In  the 
one-sided  view  they  present  to  us  of  his  social  rela- 
tions, they  appear  to  be  averse  to  any  discussion  of  the 

24 


SOCIAL  ENVIRONMENT  IN  LONDON 

only  facts  obtained  by  two  centuries  of  investigation. 

A  psychological  analysis  will  show  that  we  have 
here  something  more  than  the  effects  of  mere  hero- 
worship.  It  is,  really,  an  illustration  of  the  inca- 
pacity or  limited  scope  of  the  human  mind.  It  has 
fallen  to  the  lot  of  men  of  science,  more  perhaps  than 
to  any  others,  to  come  in  conflict  with  the  repressive 
influences  resulting  therefrom.  Many  scientists, 
indeed,  have  called  attention  to'  this  in  their  writings. 
The  great  Swedish  chemist  Berzelius,  for  example, 
in  1827  remarked :  "  By  being  accustomed  through 
long  usage  to  a  given  opinion  or  idea,  we  frequently 
become  so  thoroughly  convinced  of  its  truthfulness 
that  we  conceal  its  weak  points  and  become  incapable 
of  accepting  evidence  that  is  opposed  to  it." 

In  like  manner  John  Day,  a  now  forgotten  scien- 
tist of  the  seventeenth  century,  observed :  "  I  know 
not  what  fatal  calamity  has  invaded  the  sciences ; 
for  when  an  error  is  born  with  them  and  with  the 
lapse  of  time  becomes  as  it  were  fixed,  those  who 
profess  the  science  will  not  suffer  its  withdrawal." 

But  perhaps  the  best  analysis  of  this  peculiar  men- 
tal malady  is  that  given  by  Lord  Bacon  in  his  Novum 
Organum:  "  The  human  understanding  when  it  has 
once  adopted  an  opinion  (either  as  being  the  received 
opinion  or  as  being  agreeable  to  itself)  draws  all 
things  else  to  support  and  agree  with  it.  And  though 
there  be  a  greater  number  and  weight  of  instances  to 
be  found  on  the  other  side,  yet  these  it  either  neglects 
and  despises,  or  else  by  some  distinction  sets  aside 
and  rejects ;  prejudging  the  matter  to  a  great  and 
pernicious  extent,  in  order  that  the  authority  of  its 
former  conclusions  may  remain  inviolate." 

25 


CHAPTER  II 

Further  Light  on  Shakspere's  Environment  in 
London — The  Authorship 

Let  us  now  consider  some  new  information,  pre- 
sented in  articles  recently  published,  relating  to 
William  Shakspere's  life  in  London. 

Dr.  Charles  William  Wallace  has  written  several 
articles  wherein  are  given  the  results  obtained  by 
liim  and  his  wife  in  their  search  through  some  million 
of  documents  now  in  the  Public  Record  Office,  Lon- 
don. In  two  of  these  articles  (the  Century  Maga- 
zine, August  and  September,  1910)  Dr.  Wallace 
shows  that  Shakspere  was  a  shareholder  in  two  Lon- 
don theatres  in  conjunction  with  Burbage,  Hem- 
mings,  Condell,  and  others.  These  actors  formed  a 
close  corporation,  a  small-sized  "  trust."  So  tightly 
was  this  ownership  held  by  them  that  they  were,  by 
agreement,  debarred  from  disposing  of  their  shares 
by  will.  The  only  deduction  we  make  from  this 
discovery  by  Dr.  Wallace  is  that  Shakspere  was  as 
closely  allied  with  these  men  in  his  business  affairs 
as  he  was  connected  with  them  professionally  and 
socially.  Of  more  interest  is  Dr.  Wallace's  article 
in  Harper's  Magazine  for  April,  1910  (Vol.  120, 
page  489),  giving  results  also  obtained  from  his 
searches  in  the  Public  Record  Office.  This  article 
has  to  do  with  Shakspere's  relations  with  a  certain 
London  shopkeeper  and  with  the  matrimonial  affairs 
of  the  shopkeeper's  apprentice.  It  seems  that  a  wig- 
maker  named  Mount  joy  had  his  shop  and  dwelling. 


LIGHT  ON  ENVIRONMENT  IN  LONDON 

occupying  a  single  building,  in  Muggle  Street,  Lon- 
don. This  Mount  joy  had  a  young  apprentice  named 
Bellott  in  his  shop.  Side  by  side  with  the  appren- 
tice, and  apparently  working  over  the  same  wigs, 
was  the  daughter  of  ]Mountjoy.  The  young  girl's 
mother,  INIrs.  Mount  joy,  thought  that  Bellott  would 
be  a  desirable  husband  for  her  daughter.  But  some 
six  years  passed  by,  the  year  1604  arrived,  the 
apprentice  had  completed  his  apprenticeship,  and 
the  desired  proposal  of  marriage  had  not  been  made. 

In  this  house  Shakspere  dwelt.  It  seems  he  had 
lived  there  for  several  years.  The  wigmaker  and 
his  family  were  people  of  the  class  of  life  described 
by  Dr.  Wallace  as  "  common  folk,  most  ordinary 
people."  Shakspere  himself  "  knew  the  family  well, 
and  was  on  terms  of  intimacy  with  them 
he  had  an  intimate  household  acquaintance  covering 
all  the  time  of  the  six  years  in  question 
he  shows  an  intimate  knowledge  of  the  family  con- 
ferences over  the  coming  event  "  [i.e.,  the  wedding). 

Accordingly  Mrs.  Mount  joy  "  did  solicit  and  en- 
treat "  Shakspere  to  move  and  persuade  the  appren- 
tice to  effect  the  said  marriage,  promising  a 
marriage  portion  and  certain  household  effects. 
Shakspere  did  so  and  was  successful,  and  the  young 
people  were  married.  Not  long  afterwards  the  old 
lady  died.  Bellott  quarrelled  with  his  father-in-law, 
as  the  dowry  was  not  forthcoming,  and  left  the  house 
with  his  wife.  They  took  with  them  the  household 
goods  promised,  "  one  old  feather  bed,  one  old  feather 
bolster,  ...  a  dozen  of  napkins  of  coarse 
diaper,     .      .     .     an  old  drawing  table,  two  old  joint 

27 


SHAKSPERE  AND  SIR  WALTER  RALEGH 

stools,  .  .  .  two  pairs  of  little  scissors,  one  old 
trunk  and  a  like  old  trunk,"  and  so  on — and  brought 
suit  for  the  dowry.  Shakspere  was  called  as  one  of 
the  witnesses,  and  we  have  his  deposition,  with  his 
signature  attached,  as  a  part  of  the  Court  record. 
He  signed  his  name  "  Willm  Shak  "  — or  "  Shaks." 

The  one  valuable  result  of  Dr.  Wallace's  discovery 
is  the  knowledge  thus  obtained  of  Shakspere's  domes- 
tic life  in  London,  of  his  intimacies  and  of  his  friend- 
ships. Women  of  the  type  of  Mrs.  Wigmaker,  as 
we  all  know,  talk  over  and  arrange  such  matters 
with  their  intimates  and  cronies. 

Yet  Sidney  Lee  in  his  Life  (page  93),  speaking 
of  Thorpe,  the  publisher  of  the  Sonnets,  states  that 
Thorpe  was  "  in  no  position  to  take  into  consid- 
eration the  affairs  of  Shakespeare's  private  life. 
Shakespeare,  through  all  but  the  earliest  stages  of 
liis  career,  belonged  socially  to  a  world  that  was  cut 
off  by  impassable  barriers  from  that  in  which  Thorpe 
pursued  his  calling." 

That  the  biographer  is  indulging  in  what  Mr. 
George  Saintsbury  characterizes  as  "  the  most  peri- 
lous process  of  conjecture  "  is  rendered  certain  by 
Dr.  Wallace's  proof,  if  such  proof  be  needed.  It  was 
only  because  the  actor  was  not  separated  by  impas- 
sable barriers  but,  on  the  contrary,  was  in  close  rela- 
tions with  these  tradespeople  that  Mrs.  Mount  joy 
brought  him  into  the  family  conferences  over  such  a 
purely  domestic  matter  as  the  marriage  of  her 
daughter.  Especially  close  and  intimate  must  have 
been  the  relations  between  the  two,  when  we  remem- 
ber that  it  was  to  a  man  that  the  mother  confided 

28 


LIGHT  ON  ENVIRONMENT  IN  LONDON 

her  heart's  dearest  wishes.  For  ordinarily  a  woman 
will  discuss  such  domestic  affairs  not  with  a  man 
but  with  another  woman. 

That  Mr.  Sidney  Lee's  conception  of  Shakspere's 
private  life  and  of  the  impassable  barriers,  etc.,  is 
wrong,  may  well  be  believed  from  the  full  knowledge 
we  have  of  his  own  people.  Shakspere's  mother 
before  her  marriage,  according  to  Halliwell- 
Phillipps  {Outlines,  Vol.  I,  page  28),  not  improbably 
worked  in  the  fields.  His  wife,  Anne  Hathaway, 
was  a  rustic  woman  of  the  same  type.  His  sister 
Joan  married  a  hatter.  His  daughter  Judith  mar- 
ried a  man  whoi  kept  a  wine-shop.  These  were  the 
people  among  whom  he  lived. 

When  he  left  Stratford  and  came  to  London  he 
dwelt  with  tradespeople.  Making  his  will  in  the 
last  month  of  his  life,  and  casting  a  glance  backward 
over  his  twenty  years  in  London,  he  remembered  no 
dwellers  in  that  city  but  humble  persons.  His 
record  is  clear.  It  is  uniformly  consistent.  We 
have  no  record  of  him  outside  this  bourgeois  class. 
The  effect  produced  on  our  minds  by  Mr.  Sidney 
Lee's  statement,  therefore,  is  misleading.  The  pic- 
ture he  draws  of  the  man's  life  and  environment  is  as 
far  from  the  truth  as  is  the  actual  picture — the  well- 
known  steel  engraving — showing  Shakspere  seated 
in  a  comfortable  chair,  surrounded  by  the  nobility 
and  learning  of  England.  The  biographer,  like  the 
artist,  has  trusted  to  his  imagination  for  his  facts. 

I  would  add  a  few  words  to  the  discussion 
of  Mr.  Ernest  Law's  SJiakespere  as  a  Groom  of  the 
Chamber. 

29 


SHAKSPERE  AND  SIR  WALTER  RALEGH 

King  James  had  no  sooner  come  to  the  throne  of 
England  than  he  established  a  policy  entirely  chang- 
ing the  relations  between  England  and  Spain  that 
had  obtained  throughout  the  whole  of  Elizabeth's 
reign.  He  buried  the  hatchet  and  offered  the  olive 
branch  to  the  Catholic  Monarch.  A  treaty  of  peace 
was  concluded  and  the  King  of  Spain  sent  to  Eng- 
land, as  his  representative,  the  Constable  of  Spain 
to  ratify  formally  this  important  treaty.  The 
Ambassador,  with  a  large  train  of  noblemen,  arrived 
in  August,  1604.  A  royal  welcome  awaited  them, 
and  entertainments  of  all  kinds  were  given  in  their 
honor.  Among  others,  the  actors  of  the  Globe  Com- 
pany, of  which  Shakspere  was  one,  were  appointed 
"  Grooms  of  the  Chamber ;  "  the  intention  probably 
being  to  present  some  Plays  for  the  entertainment 
of  the  Spaniards.  No  record  of  their  performance 
is  known,  and  it  seems  that  their  services  were  not  re- 
quired, probably  for  the  reason  that  the  members  of 
the  embassy,  not  spealdng  English,  could  not  have 
understood  a  word  that  was  said.  Nevertheless  the 
fact  remains  that  they  were  so  appointed,  just  as 
Queen  Elizabeth  appointed  a  dozen  actors  of  the 
day  "  Grooms  of  the  Chamber  "  in  1583.  Shakspere's 
name  does  not  appear  in  the  account  of  payments  to 
the  players.  In  fact  only  the  names  of  Phillips  and 
Hemmings  are  given.  But  it  is  not  unlikely  that  he 
was  one  of  the  "  tenne  of  their  fellows  "  mentioned. 
In  the  entry  in  question, the  Globe  Players  come  im- 
mediately before  the  entry  of  payments  to  the  troupe 
formerly  known  as  the  Admiral's  Players.  This  repre- 
sents the  sum  total  of  our  knowledge  of  the  matter. 

30 


LIGHT  ON  ENVIRONMENT  IN  LONDON 

But  here  at  last  we  have  Shakspere  in  the  Court. 
To  be  sure  he  appears  in  company  with  a  couple  of 
dozen  other  actors,  drawing  his  pay  of  two  shillings 
a  day  just  as  the  other  actors  drew  theirs  for  the 
same  amount.  Nevertheless  he  is  in  the  Court. 
So  Mr.  Law  allows  his  imagination  to  gallop  apace. 

Dorset  the  Lord  Treasurer,  Nottingham  the 
Lord  Admiral,  Devonshire,  Northampton,  and  Cecil 
were  the  English  members  of  the  conferences,  who, 
with  the  Spanish  noblemen,  met  at  Somerset  House. 
"  With  all  of  these,"  says  Mr.  Law,  "  Shakespeare 
must  have  been  brought  into  close  relations,  whenever 
a  sitting  of  the  conference  took  place."  He  de- 
scribes Shakspere  as  "  a  certain  interesting  individ- 
ual known  to  the  King  and  all  the  Court,  the  inti- 
mate associate  of  several  prominent  nobles,"  and 
tells  us  the  Stratfordian  would  not  have  experienced 
any  "sense  of  degradation  or  humiliation"  in  kissing 
the  hand  of  the  Ambassador  of  the  King  of  Spain. 

These  gems  are  too  pellucid  to  be  destroyed  by  an- 
alysis. Let  us  therefore  turn  to  Mr.  Law's  account 
of  Shakspere's  part  in  the  royal  procession  of  King 
James  on  his  entrance  into  London,  March  15,  1604. 

James  was  crowned  in  July,  1603.  But  as  a  ter- 
rible plague  was  raging  in  London  during  the  whole 
of  that  year,  he  did  not  enter  the  city  until  the  spring 
of  1604.  A  huge  procession  followed  the  King  and 
his  train  through  the  streets  of  London  in  honor 
of  the  arrival  of  the  new  sovereign,  and  Shakspere 
and  his  fellows  were  in  this  procession. 

The  discovery  of  this  fact  was  announced  by 
Halliwell-Phillipps  in  a  letter  to  The  Athenosum, 

31 


SHAKSPERE  AND  SIR  WALTER  RALEGH 

dated  April  26,  1864.  It  has  been  known,  there- 
fore, for  half  a  century,  and  was  found  as  an  entry 
in  the  accounts  of  the  Master  of  the  Wardrobe  show- 
ing expenses  incurred  by  him  for  "  all  manner  of 
furaitures  and  provisions  whatsoever  by  him  bought 
and  provided  for  His  Majesty's  use  and  service 
against  his  royal  Entrye  and  proceedinge  throughe 
his  honourable  Citie  of  London."  The  record  of 
payment  to  the  King's  Players  is  in  the  list  of  the 
household,  following  the  payment  to  the  Falconers, 
and  appears  thus  in  the  manuscript: 

Players  Skarlet  red  cloth 

William  Shakespeare iiij  yardes  di. 

Augustine  PhillipiDS iiij  yardes  di. 

Lawrence  Fletcher iiij  yardes  di. 

John  Hemminges iiij  yardes  di. 

Richard  Burbidge iiij  j'^ardes  di. 

William  Slye iiij  yardes  di. 

Robert  Armyn iiij  yardes  di. 

Henry  Cundell iiij  yardes  di. 

Richard  Cowley   iiij  yardes  di. 

Shakspere's  presence  in  the  procession  is  noted 
by  most  of  the  principal  biographers,  such  as 
Halliwell-Phillipps,  Lee,  Brandes,  and  Fleay.  (Mr. 
Law  does  Mr.  Fleay  injustice  in  stating  that  he 
did  not  "  ever  make  any  reference  to  the  supposed 
fact,"  for  he  refers  to  it  twice  and  gives  the  full  list 
of  names  as  above.)  Dr.  Furnivall,  however,  states 
that  "  I  take  it  for  granted  Shakspere  was  not  in 
it,"  and  in  his  Life  ignores  the  procession  altogether. 
Mr.  Law  goes  further  and  denies  that  he  was  there. 
He  refers  to  several  poems,  written  on  the  occasion, 

32 


LIGHT  ON  ENVIRONMENT  IN  LONDON 

by  Ben  Jonson,  Drayton,  and  others  in  which  no 
mention  is  made  of  the  Players.  As  a  matter  of 
fact  there  is  no  reason  why  they  should  have  been 
mentioned  in  poetical  works  of  this  kind.  He  thinks 
that  these  writers  would  have  referred  to  a  circum- 
stance so  remarkable  "  as  the  presence  of  the  Players 
among  the  great  Ministers  of  State,  the  High  Court 
Officials,  and  the  personal  attendants  of  the  King 
and  Queen."  The  Players  were  not  among  the 
Ministers  of  State  or  other  officials.  Their  names, 
in  the  accounts,  appear  immediately  after  the  names 
of  the  Falconers.  The  allowance  of  four  and  one- 
half  yards  of  red  cloth  to  Shakspere  and  to  each  of 
the  eight  others  was  shared  by  them  with  an  extraor- 
dinary jumble  of  persons,  such  as  grooms  and  yeo- 
men of  the  Bake-house,  Buttery  and  Boyling-house, 
and  with  pewterers,  basket-makers,  perfumers,  nap- 
kin-pinchers, etc.  In  fact, people  of  the  humblest  class 
were  always  allowed  to  take  part  in  public  proces- 
sions of  this  kind.  In  the  funeral  cavalcade  of  James 
I,  some  two  decades  later,  the  same  allowance  of  black 
cloth  was  made  to  actors  who  then  marched  in  the 
streets,  as  was  made  to  pot-scourers,  oat-meal  men, 
trunk-makers,  dog-wagoners,  cormorant-keepers  and 
other  followers.  When  Queen  Anne,  consort  of 
James,  died  in  1618,  her  Players  were  in  the  funeral 
procession.  In  the  coronation  procession  of  Charles 
I,  a  grant  of  red  cloth  was  again  made  to  the  actors. 
Mr.  Law,  however,  quotes  several  contemporary 
documents  in  which  the  position  in  the  procession  is 
assigned  to  those  taking  part,  without  mention  being 
made  of  the  actors.     He  accordingly  concludes  that 


SHAKSPERE  AND  SIR  WALTER  RALEGH 

the  actors  were  not  present.  Certain  it  is,  however, 
that  their  names  do  appear  in  the  most  reliable  docu- 
ment of  all,  viz. : — that  in  which  the  expenditures 
and  payments  are  given.  There  can  be  no  doubt  of 
their  having  marched  in  the  procession  first  men- 
tioned, else  for  what  reason  was  the  grant  of  red 
cloth  made  to  them.''  And  why  should  such  a  grant 
be  found  in  a  document  that  has  to  do  with  this 
particular  procession  and  with  nothing  else?  Clearly 
they  marched  then,  just  as  Players  did  in  the  three 
other  processions  mentioned. 

I  would  draw  attention  to  one  reason  why  the 
actors  should  be  expected  to  appear  on  a  gala  occa- 
sion such  as  this.  They  were  much  admired  by  the 
populace,  and  especially  by  the  classes  to  which  they 
themselves  belonged. 

Hemmings  in  his  old  age  was  a  grocer,  John 
Lewin  was  an  inn-keeper.  When  on  the  stage  they 
drew  immense  crowds.  Nashe  testified  that  the  Play 
/  Henry  VI  was  witnessed  by  ten  thousand  spec- 
tators in  the  small  theatres  of  London.  Leonard 
Digges,  at  a  later  date,  stated,  that  when  the 
Shakspere  Plays  were  performed  "  the  cock-pit,  gal- 
leries, boxes  all  are  full."  Testimony  is  forthcoming 
showing  the  warm  personal  feeling  the  populace  had 
for  these  actors  of  the  Globe.  When  that  theatre 
burned  down  in  1613,  a  contemporary  ballad  states 
that  "  the  riprobates  prayed  for  the  foil  and  Henry 
Cundye,"  who  were  late  getting  out  of  the  building. 
This  Henry  Cundye  for  whom  the  reprobates  prayed 
was  the  same  Henry  Condell  whose  name  appeared  in 
the  foregoing  list  of  nine  actors  receiving  red  cloth, 

34 


LIGHT  ON  ENVIRONMENT  IN  LONDON 

and  was  the  same  Henry  Condell  who  was  remembered 
in  the  last  will  and  testament  of  William  Shakspere. 

We  may  well  believe,  therefore,  that  as  the  proces- 
sion slowly  made  its  way  through  the  crowded 
London  streets  on  that  March  day  of  1604 — with 
the  familiar  faces  of  these  actors  in  full  view — 
Shakspere,  Condell,  and  the  rest  of  them  were  recog- 
nized by  those  who  had  so  often  seen  them  on  the 
stage,  and  were  greeted  with  enthusiastic  shouts 
and  salutations  by  the  assembled  crowds. 

Of  some  of  the  actors  named  in  the  list  of  the  First 
Folio,  we  have  definite  knowledge.  One  of  them, 
Underwood,  named  one  of  his  children  after  Burbage. 
Another,  Tooley,  died  in  Cuthbert  Burbage's  house 
and  left  a  legacy  to  Mrs.  Burbage  who  had  nursed 
him  in  his  last  illness.  Pope  left  his  wardrobe  and 
weapons  to  GofFe  and  Edmonds.  Robinson  left  a 
legacy  to  Burbage's  daughter.  Cuthbert  Burbage 
and  Condell  were  executors  of  Tooley.  Hemmings 
managed  the  property  of  Phillips's  widow.  Phillips 
left  legacies  to  Shakspere,  Tooley,  Cowley,  and 
others,  and  Shakspere  remembered  several  of  them 
when  he  made  his  will  in  the  last  year  of  his  life  at 
Stratford.  They  were  a  band  of  brothers,  closely 
allied  in  their  acting,  in  their  business  affairs,  in 
their  pleasures,  and  in  their  home  life. 

Although  the  players  are  sometimes  represented 
as  a  set  of  poor  creatures  who^  were  down  at  the  heel 
and  had  to  travel  through  the  provinces  to  support 
themselves  by  acting,  it  must  not  be  supposed  that 
they  were  all  poorly  situated.  Burbage,  for  in- 
stance,  appears   to'  have  been   fairly  well   to   do. 

35 


SHAKSPERE  AND  SIR  WALTER  RALEGH 

Phillips  was  able  to  buy  a  house  in  the  country. 
Shakspere  also,  as  is  well  known,  made  quite  a  for- 
tune. Dr.  Wallace  shows  that  he  had  a  comfortable 
income  from  his  stock,  or  share,  in  the  theatres. 

In  addition  to  this  Shakspere  prospered  as  a 
money-lender  or  usurer.  He  appears  to  have  been 
quite  active  in  this  line  of  business.  The  only  letter 
in  existence  addressed  to  him  is  one  which  asks  for 
a  loan.  Of  the  large  majority  of  cases  in  which 
he  plied  his  trade  as  a  money-lender  we  know  noth- 
ing; for  the  debtor  paid  back  the  loan,  and  that 
ended  the  matter.  It  was  only  when  the  borrower 
did  not  pay  that  the  affair  got  into  the  Courts  and 
was  recorded.  Thus  Shakspere  brought  suit  against 
John  Clayton  in  1601  for  seven  pounds,  and  got 
judgment.  This  was  in  London.  In  1604  he  sued 
Philip  Rogers  in  Stratford  for  one  pound,  fifteen 
shillings,  ten  pence.  In  1601  he  brought  suit  against 
John  Addenbroke  to  recover  a  debt  of  six  pounds ; 
but  as  Addenbroke  could  not  be  found,  Shakspere 
sued  a  certain  Horneby,  who  had  become  bail  for 
Addenbroke.  Richard  Grant  White  observes  that 
these  facts  "  grate  upon  our  feelings,"  and  adds 
that  "  the  pursuit  of  an  impoverished  man,  for  the 
sake  of  imprisoning  him  and  depri^ang  him  both 
of  the  power  of  paying  his  debt  and  supporting  him- 
self and  his  family,  is  an  incident  in  Shakspere's 
life  which  requires  the  utmost  allowance  and  consid- 
eration for  the  practice  of  the  time  and  country  to 
enable  us  to  contemplate  with  equanimity — satis- 
faction is  impossible."  He  does  not  like  the  facts 
and  regrets  that  they  have  been  published.     "  The 

36 


LIGHT  ON  ENVIRONMENT  IN  LONDON 

biographer  of  Shakspere,"  says  Mr.  White,  "  must 
record  these  facts  because  literary  antiquaries  hare 
unearthed,  produced,  and  pitilessly  printed  them. 
Could  not  these  at  least  have  been  allowed 
to  rest?  "  Mr.  White  is  not  the  only  biographer  to 
whom  the  facts  of  Shakspere's  life  are  distasteful. 

One  more  matter  relating  to  Shakspere's  fellows 
remains  to  be  presented.  Charles  Kingsley,  in  his 
essay,  Plays  and  Puritans,  has  drawn  attention  to 
the  fact  that  Ben  Jonson  refers  to  Burbage  and 
Hemmings  in  his  Masque  of  Christmas,  which  was 
presented  at  Court  in  1616.  Jonson  represents 
these  two  men  as  being  panders  to  vice  of  a  certain 
kind  that  then  obtained  in  London,  namely,  the 
procuring  of  young  boys  for  immoral  purposes.  It 
was  not  customary  for  Jonson,  in  the  many  allu- 
sions to  people  of  the  day  that  occur  in  his  plays, 
to  give  their  real  names.  But  in  this  case  he  has 
done  so.  Therefore  he  must  have  been  sure  of  his 
men,  and  also  must  have  known  that  the  gross  charge 
he  brought  against  Burbage  and  Hemmings  was 
a  matter  of  common  repute  throughout  London. 
After  speaking  of  the  profligate  characters  repre- 
sented on  the  stage  at  that  time,  Kingsley  continues : 
"  Prynne  and  others  hint  at  still  darker  abomina- 
tions than  the  mere  defilement  of  the  conscience;  we 
shall  say  nothing  of  them  but  that,  from  collateral 
evidence,  we  believe  every  word  they  say;  and  that 
when  pretty  little  Cupid's  mother,  in  Jonson's 
Christmas  Masque,  tells  how  *  She  could  have  had 
money  enough  for  him,  had  she  been  tempted,  and 
have  let  him  out  by  the  week  to  the  King's  Players,' 

37 


SHAKSPERE  AND  SIR  WALTER  RALEGH 

and  '  How  Master  Burbage  has  been  about  and 
about  with  her  for  him,  and  old  Mr.  Hemings  too,' 
she  had  better  have  tied  a  stone  round  the  child's 
neck,  and  have  hove  him  over  London  Bridge,  than 
have  handed  him  over  to  the  thrifty  Burbage  that  he 
might  make  out  of  the  degradation  of  Christ's  lamb, 
more  money  to  buy  land  withal,  and  settle  comfort- 
ably in  his  native  town,  on  the  fruits  of  others'  sin." 

Both  of  these  vice-mongers,  as  well  as  another  of 
their  fellows,  Henry  Condell,  were  remembered  in 
terms  showing  close  intimacy  in  the  last  will  and 
testament  of  William  Shakspere  of  Stratford. 

More  than  a  century  and  a  half  ago  Alexander 
Pope  remarked  that  "  It  is  perfectly  amazing  "  that 
dramas  showing  such  wonderful  delineation  of  char- 
acter, such  power  over  the  passions,  such  reflection 
and  reasoning  upon  every  subject  should  proceed 
"  from  a  man  of  no  education  or  experience  in  those 
great  and  public  scenes  of  life  which  are  usually 
the  subject  of  his  thoughts." 

The  knowledge  we  now  have  of  the  personal  life 
of  Shakspere  renders  incredible  that  which  Pope, 
with  the  few  data  at  his  command,  considered  amaz- 
ing. I  have  said  little,  in  the  foregoing  pages,  of 
the  learning  and  culture  displayed  in  the  Dramas. 
Nor  has  attention  been  directed  to  the  innumerable 
proofs  contained  therein  of  the  familiarity  of  the 
writer  with  a  host  of  subjects,  many  of  which  can  be 
understood  and  interpreted  only  by  one  who  is  an 
expert  in  these  several  branches  of  learning.  All  of 
this  has  been  presented  by  other  writers.  The  con- 
sideration of  such  facts,  however,  renders  it  still 
more  difficult  to  believe  that  the  greatest  dramatic 


LIGHT  ON  ENVIRONMENT  IN  LONDON 

works  in  our  language,  nearly  every  line  of  which 
bespeaks  the  courtier  and  scholar,  could  have  been 
written  by  this  Stratford  money-lender.  It  seems 
to  me  a  waste  of  time  to  argue  the  question  or  seek 
to  prove  that  which  is  self-evident.  I  shall  only  re- 
peat what  has  already  been  stated,  namely,  that  these 
bald  facts,  the  procuring  of  which  has  occupied  the 
earnest  endeavors  and  even  entire  lives  of  many 
learned  men,  are  belittled,  misconstrued,  ignored,  or 
suppressed  by  biographers,  editors,  and  critics,  whose 
duty  it  is  to  present  a  plain  unvarnished  tale  for  the 
reader's  information.  Especially  deceptive  is  the 
account  they  give  of  Shakspere's  character,  which 
they  reconstruct  by  the  process  of  illumination  with 
the  light  that  shines  forth  from  the  great  Dramas. 

The  structure  erected  in  this  deceptive  manner 
constitutes  to  a  large  extent  the  conventional  biog- 
raphy of  this  Stratford  actor  and  manager.  But 
when  once  the  unquestioned  facts  of  his  life  are  col- 
lected and  arrayed,  the  attempt  to  coordinate  im- 
possible opposites  becomes  so  apparent  that  even  the 
most  extraordinary  ingenuity  in  constructing  fanci- 
ful biography  cannot  conceal  the  truth. 

Yet  even  the  reasonable  contention  that  the 
authorship  is  a  subject  for  legitimate  investi- 
gation is  viewed  by  these  gentlemen  with  dis- 
favor. So  far  as  their  influence  can  prevail  all 
inquiry  is  stopped.  A  recent  writer,  the  editor  of  the 
latest  edition  of  the  Encyclopcedia  Britannica,  goes 
so  far  as  to  state :  "  In  so  far  as  evidence  is  to  be 
twisted  and  strained  at  all,  it  is  right,  in  view  of  the 
long  tradition,  and  the  prima  facie  presumptive  evi- 
dence, to  attain  it  in  any  direction  which  can  reason- 

39 


SHAKSPERE  AND  SIR  WALTER  RALEGH 

ably  make  the  Shaksperian  authorship  intelligible." 
The  grave  injury  that  is  thus  done  to  the  study 
of  an  important  problem  in  English  literature  be- 
comes apparent  when  we  contrast  the  attitude  of  the 
litterateur  with  that  of  the  investigator  working  in 
the  field  of  natural  sciences.  Any  abnormality,  any 
deviation  from  normal  conditions,  is  welcomed  by  the 
scientist  as  a  valuable  indication,  a  finger-post  point- 
ing to  some  possible  future  discovery.  In  the  science 
of  astronomy,  for  example,  it  was  by  the  study  of 
minute  irregularities  in  the  motion  of  the  planet 
Uranus  that  the  new  world  Neptune  was  discovered 
and  its  position,  far  out  in  space,  accurately  fore- 
told. In  physics  it  was  by  the  following  up  of  trifling 
divergences  from  the  normal  that  Professor  Crookes 
discovered  a  new  form  of  energy  in  all  radiant  heat. 
In  chemistry  Lord  Rayleigh,  working  from  equally 
insignificant  premises  as  a  starting  point,  discovered 
the  new  gas  Argon  in  our  atmosphere.  A  dozen 
examples  might  be  given. 

But  in  the  world  of  letters  we  are  introduced  into 
the  company  of  men  whose  mental  training  appears 
to  have  been  of  a  character  wholly  different  from 
that  of  the  scientist.  The  divergences  from  the 
normal  in  the  case  of  Shakspere  are  not  minute — 
they  are  enormous.  And  yet,  instead  of  accepting 
these  pregnant  indications  as  danger  signals  and 
guides  for  investigation  and  study,  the  custom  has 
been  to  receive  such  abnormalities  with  indifference, 
to  explain  them  away  by  any  possible  means,  or  to 
make  mouths  at  the  bare  idea  of  the  authorship  being 
other  than  Stratfordian. 

Great  stress  is  laid  by  the  advocates  of  conserva- 
40 


LIGHT  ON  ENVIRONMENT  IN  LONDON 

tism  on  what  they  are  pleased  to  term  the  potent 
workings  of  "  genius."  There  is  always  some  vague 
idea,  some  phrase,  some  term  by  which  the  Bourbon 
type  of  mind  accommodates  itself  to  inherently  self- 
contradictory  facts.  It  has  always  been  so.  In 
astronomy,  when  the  planets  were  observed  to  move 
backwards  in  their  orbits,  as  at  times  they  do,  the 
absurd  system  of  cycles  and  epicycles  was  in- 
vented. In  geology,  when  a  fossil  was  found  on  a 
mountain-top,  clearly  proving  that  the  age  of  that 
formation  was  to  be  measured  by  myriads  of  years, 
rather  than  by  a  few  thousands,  a  term  was  invented 
to  overcome  the  difficulty.  Such  a  fossil  was  termed 
a  lusus  naturw.  In  physics,  when  a  suction  pump 
was  found  to  draw  up  water  against  the  action  of 
gravity,  a  phrase  was  invented :  "  Nature  abhors  a 
vacuum ;  "  and  thereby  all  was  made  clear.  In 
chemistry,  when  the  phenomena  of  combustion  were 
not  otherwise  explainable,  a  new  substance  or  "  prin- 
ciple "  was  invented.  It  was  named  "  phlogiston." 
These  terms  are  now  abandoned. 

The  vast  ma j  ority  of  students  who  have  worked  in 
the  Shaksperian  field  have  been  content  to  adhere 
to  methods  that  are  characteristic  of  the  days  of 
the  pseudo-sciences.  We  have  not  yet  emerged  from 
the  phlogiston  era.  Only,  to-day,  it  is  not  phlogiston 
but  "  genius."  It  is  "  genius  "  that  permits  a  man 
of  no  education  to  develop  into  a  dramatic  poet, 
familiar  with  the  literature  of  both  the  ancient  and 
modern  worlds.  It  is  "  genius  "  that  enables  a  man 
of  low  environment — noscitur  a  sociis — to  be  the 
author  of  Midsummer  Night's  Dreain  and  Hamlet. 

There  are,  of  course,  two  sides  to  every  problem; 
41 


SHAKSPERE  AND  SIR  WALTER  RALEGH 

otherwise  there  would  be  no  problem.  On  the  one 
hand,  there  can  be  no  question  as  to  the  authenticity 
of  the  evidence  establishing  the  actual  life  of 
Shakspere  in  Stratford  and  London.  No  shadow  of 
suspicion  rests  on  these  few  bald  and  unpalatable 
facts.  On  the  other  hand,  to  continue  to  oppose  irre- 
futable truths  by  unsupported  conjectures  is  sim- 
ply to  remain  in  the  quagmire  into  which  we  have 
hitherto  invariably  landed.  The  only  way  out  is 
to  examine  carefully  the  evidence  upon  which  the 
conventional  view  is  based,  in  order  to  ascertain  if 
there  be  not  some  circumstance  or  condition  attached 
thereto  that  has  liitherto  been  ignored. 

Undoubtedly  customs  and  conditions  existed  in 
Elizabethan  times  that  have  ceased  to  exist  to-day. 
Among  such  customs  we  now  know  that  it  was  not 
unusual  for  men  of  rank  and  position  to  employ  a 
"  man  of  straw  "  as  a  nominal  author  of  their  lit- 
erary productions,  and  for  reasons  of  their  own — 
possibly  for  the  safety  of  their  heads — to  publish 
their  writings  under  his  name. 

Understanding  these  conditions,  we  shall  be  at 
liberty  correctly  to  study  the  many  allusions  to  the 
events  and  to  the  people  of  the  day  in  the  Plays 
and  Sonnets,  By  ignoring  totally  the  Stratford  man- 
of-straw  we  shall  be  free  to  make  a  fresh  start  in  con- 
sidering these  topical  allusions.  Guided  by  them,  and 
allowing  our  path  of  investigation  to  be  illuminated 
by  their  light  only,  we  shall  be  enabled  to  pursue  the 
inquiry  on  inductive  lines,  to  study  the  authorship 
from  a  rational  standpoint  and  by  scientific  methods, 
unhindered  by  the  hero-worship  and  the  traditions 
that  have  obscured  the  subject  for  three  centuries. 

42 


CHAPTER  III 

The  "  Man  of  Straw  "  in  Elizabethan 
Literature 

The  external  evidence  on  which  are  based  the 
claims  for  authorship  by  the  Stratfordian  of  the 
works  reputed  to  be  liis,  may  be  presented  under 
seven  headings  as  follows : 

(1)  The  publication  in  1593  and  1594,  respec- 
tively, of  the  two  Poems,  Venus  and  Adonis  and 
Lucrece,  in  each  of  which  the  dedicatory  address 
to  the  Earl  of  Southampton  is  signed  "  William 
Shakespeare." 

(2)  The  attribution  to  "Shakespeare"  of  the 
above  Poems,  of  certain  Sonnets,  and  of  certain 
Dramas,  by  Francis  Meres  in  his  book  Palladis 
Tamia,  published  in  1598. 

(3)  The  publication  in  and  after  1598  of  a  num- 
ber of  quarto  editions  of  Plays,  on  the  title-pages  of 
many  of  which  the  statement  is  made  that  they  were 
written  by  "  William  Shakespeare "  or  "  Shake- 
speare." Herein  may  be  included,  also,  the  1609 
edition  of  "  Shake-speare's  Sonnets." 

(4)  The  allusions  to  "  Shakespeare"  or  "  Shake- 
speare "  as  a  dramatist,  and  especially  as  a  poet, 
in  a  number  of  published  works  that  appeared  during 
the  actor's  lifetime. 

(5)  The  First  Folio,  published  in  1623. 

(6)  The  Stratford  Monument. 

(7)  Ben  Jonson's  eulogy  of  "Shakespeare"  in 
his  Discoveries. 

The  last  three  of  the  foregoing  are  of  a  date 


SHAKSPERE  AND  SIR  WALTER  RALEGH 

later  than  the  Stratfordian's  death.  They  prob- 
ably are  based  on  conditions  and  arise  from  circum- 
stances that  are  unconnected  with  the  four  others. 
I  shall  limit  myself  here,  therefore,  to  consideration 
of  the  evidence  presented  under  the  first  four 
headings. 

Not  long!  ago  at  a  certain  dinner  an  interesting 
discussion  took  place  regarding  the  works  written 
by  the  author  of  Innocents  Abroad.  The  conver- 
sation lasted  some  time — a  quarter  of  an  hour  or 
so — but  not  once  during  this  time  was  the  author's 
name  mentioned.  He  was  invariably  referred  to 
as  Mark  Twain.  Of  course,  Innocents  Abroad  was 
not  written  by  Mark  Twain:  it  was  written  by  Mr. 
Samuel  L.  Clemens. 

Naturally,  we  have  no  difficulty  in  understanding 
a  custom  so'  common  in  our  time  and,  naturally  also, 
the  reader  will  object  that  the  point  just  made  is 
not  applicable  to  the  subject  we  are  studying,  inas- 
much as  there  was  a  man  named  Shakspere,  who  lived 
in  London  and  was  buried  at  Stratford.  This  is 
perfectly  true,  and  I  shall  consider  that  question 
below.  But  before  doing  so  it  is  desirable  to  empha- 
size the  important  bearing  that  this  use  of  a  pseu- 
donym has  on  what  we  are  about  to  discuss. 

The  employment  of  a  pen-name  has  been  much 
more  wide-spread  than  is  commonly  supposed. 
Messrs.  Halkett  and  Laing,  in  the  preface  toi  their 
Dictionary  of  the  Anonymous  and  Pseudonymous 
Literature  of  Great  Britain,  quote  a  passage  from 
an  article  by  M.  Pliilarete  Chasles  relating  to  Eng- 
lish pseudonyms  between  1688  and  1800 :  "  During 
that  time  some  hundreds  of  writers,  among  whom  I 

44 


ELIZABETHAN  LITERATURE 

shall  only  take  certain  notabilities,  deliberately  re- 
nounced the  lustre  of  their  OAvn  names,  and  sacrificed 
their  vanity  to  their  interest  or  passion.  If  they 
concealed  their  names  and  disguised  their  hand, 
it  was  to  carry  out  their  work  better.  One  wishes 
to  destroy  an  ancient  reputation  which  is  in  his 
way ;  another  wants  to  popularise  sentiments  which 
he  considers  useful;  others  to  glorify  the  national 
vanity;  the  greater  part  to  make  their  fortunes. 
There  are  the  innocent  and  honest,  as  Defoe;  the 
violent  and  imprudent,  like  Chatterton ;  the  foolish, 
like  Ireland;  the  unskilful  and  caluminators,  like 
Landor;  and  lastly  the  expert,  like  the  Scotchman 
Macpherson,  who  deceived  an  entire  generation  of 
Europe  and  America." 

The  Dictionary  in  which  this  passage  occurs 
contains  about  three  thousand  pages,  and  I  know  not 
how  many  thousand  names.  Beyond  question  it  dem- 
onstrates how  common  it  has  been  for  writers  to 
publish  their  volumes  with  title-pages  which  either 
omit  the  author's  name  or  give  a  pseudonym  only. 
The  remarkable  thing  is  that  this  pen-name  is  in- 
variably accepted  and  used  by  every  one,  the  world 
over,  in  speaking  of  these  writers,  to  the  exclusion 
of  their  real  names.  Thus  we  always  speak  of 
George  Sand,  and  never  of  Madame  Dudevant ; 
of  George  Eliot,  and  never  of  Miss  Evans. 

That  this  custom  could  have  prevailed  in 
Elizabethan  days  is  evident ;  and  we  are  therefore 
justified  in  believing  that  the  name  "  Shakespeare  " 
may  have  been  so  used  on  the  title-pages  and  by  the 
writers  referred  to  at  the  beginning  of  this  chapter. 

But  in  addition  to  this  we  have,  in  the  case  of  the 
45 


SHAKSPERE  AND  SIR  WALTER  RALEGH 

works  usually  attributed  to  hira,  evidence  in  the  same 
direction  derived  from  the  use  of  a  hyphen  between  the 
first  and  second  syllable  of  the  author's  name,  thus : 

SHAKE-SPEARE. 

The  name  was  so  spelled  on  the  title-page  of  the 
first  quarto  of  Hamlet,  published  in  1603.  It  so 
appeared  also  in  at  least  a  dozen  other  quartos.  In 
the  1609  edition  of  the  Sonnets  we  again  have  it. 
In  the  First  Folio  we  find  it  five  times,  and  again  in 
several  other  commendatory  verses.  The  actor 
never  used  the  hyphen,  nor  did  anyone  use  it  when 
referring  to  him  personally.  The  only  exceptions 
to  this  last  statement  that  I  know  of  occur  in  the 
list  of  actors  in  Jonson's  Sejanus,  published  in 
1616,  and  in  the  title  to  an  epitaph  written  by 
the  Stratfordian  at  the  end  of  his  career.  Thus  in 
his  signatures,  of  which  six  are  known,  no  hyphen 
was  used.  In  the  account  of  his  securing  by  bribery 
a  coat-of-arms  for  his  father,  no  hyphen  was  used. 
The  same  is  true  of  the  1603  license  for  acting,  of 
the  1604  grant  of  red  cloth  and  of  the  1612  testimony 
in  the  wigmaker's  lawsuit.  In  no  case  where  the 
man  himself  was  mentioned,  was  a  hyphen  used  in 
spelling  his  name,  except  in  the  two  instances  men- 
tioned. In  a  word,  there  is  no  more  reason  for  be- 
lieving that  Shakspere  ever  spelled  his  name  with  a  hy- 
phen than  there  is  for  believing  that  Burb-age,  Phil- 
lips or  Con-dell  spelled  their  names  in  this  manner. 

In  the  preceding  Chapters  of  this  Volume  some 
of  the  a  priori  considerations  have  been  presented 
which  have  led  so  many  to  doubt  the  authorship. 
When  we  turn  from  the  study  of  the  man's  personal- 

46 


ELIZABETHAN  LITERATURE 

ity  to  the  exammation  of  the  works  reputed  to  be  his, 
we  are,  at  the  outset,  confronted  with  this  anomalous 
transformation  of  his  name.  So  far  as  my  infor- 
mation goes  his  case  is  absolutely  unique.  Ben 
Jonson,  Drayton,  Chapman,  Beaumont,  Fletcher, 
Marlowe,  and  Lyly  were  his  contemporaries.  They 
were  prolific  and  well-known  writers.  Their  Plays 
and  Poems  passed  through  many  editions.  But 
not  in  a  single  instance  was  the  name  of  any  one 
of  these  writers  cut  in  half  and  split  into  two  parts, 
as  was  the  name  "  Shake-speare."  The  only  reason- 
able explanation  is  that  the  publishers  of  these  edi- 
tions of  the  Shaksperian  works,  and  the  writers  of 
the  laudatory  verses  in  question  knew  very  well  that 
the  name  under  which  the  works  were  published  was 
a  pen-name,  a  pseudonym,  a  nom  de  guerre.  There- 
fore they  used  the  hyphenated  name.  Should  any 
one  doubt  this  conclusion,  or  decline  to  recognize 
its  force,  he  may  be  asked  to  give  a  better  explana- 
tion. No  publisher  of  to-day  would  dream  of  pub- 
lishing certain  poems  with  the  statement  on  the  title- 
pages,  that  they  were  written  by  "  Long-fellow  "  or 
"  Words-worth."  Equally  absurd  would  it  have  been 
for  a  seventeenth  century  publisher  to  have  used  the 
word  "  Shake-speare  "  had  he  been  referring  to  the 
Stratfordian.  And  yet  the  name  was  so  printed 
again  and  again  from  1594  in  Willohie  His  Avisa 
to  at  least  1640.  It  was  printed  very  often,  it  is 
true,  without  the  hyphen,  but  nevertheless  the  early 
appearance  of  the  hyphenated  name  strongly  sug- 
gests its  use  as  a  pseudonym. 

Moreover,  this  conclusion  is  strengthened  by  a 
remarkable  custom  that  obtained  in  the  publication 

47 


SHAKSPERE  AND  SIR  WALTER  RALEGH 

of  many  Elizabethan  works.  It  is  probable  that 
ninety-nine  readers  out  of  a  hundred  are  unfamiliar 
with  the  fact  that  in  Elizabethan  times,  the  Clemens 
of  the  day — by  which  term  of  course  I  mean  the 
literary  man  of  the  day — not  only  published  under 
the  pseudonym  of  "  Mark  Twain,"  but  there  actually 
was  a  man  whose  name  was  Mark  Twain,  who  was 
well  known,  who  walked  the  streets  of  London,  and 
to  this  man  was  attributed  the  authorship  of  the 
works  in  question. 

I  have  characterized  this  custom  as  extraordinary, 
and  it  certainly  seems  so  to  us.  For  we  cannot  imag- 
ine how  it  could  have  been  possible  for  any  writer 
not  only  to  renounce  the  authorship  of  his  own 
work,  but  deliberately  to  bestow  that  authorship 
upon  another  man,  and  allow  this  other  to  enjoy  the 
credit  and  renown  to  which  he  had  no  claim  what- 
ever. The  difficulty,  however,  is  purely  subjective. 
It  arises  from  the  habit,  so  common  to  all  of  us,  of 
persistently  looking  at  a  sixteenth  century  fact 
from  a  nineteenth  century  standpoint ;  for  the  inter- 
vening centuries  have  made  great  changes  in  habits, 
customs,  and  methods  of  thought. 

The  following  are  the  proofs : 

(1)  In  1591  Robert  Greene — the  same  Robert 
Greene  who  in  1592  tossed  and  gored  the  upstart 
"  Shake-scene  " — ^published  his  Farewell  to  Folly,  a 
work  written  a  few  years  earlier.  This  was  one  of 
a  series  of  tales  or  novelettes.  In  his  preliminary 
address  "  To  the  Gentlemen  Students  of  both  Uni- 
versities "  (Grosart,  IX,  232),  Greene  refers  to 
certain  "  Theological  poets,  which  for  their  calling 
and   gravitie,   being  loth   to   have   anie  prophane 

48 


ELIZABETHAN  LITERATURE 

pamphlets  passe  under  their  hand,  get  some  Batillus 
to  set  his  name  to  their  verses.  Thus  is  the  asse 
made  proud  by  this  under  hands  brokerie.  And  he 
that  cannot  write  true  Englishe  without  the  helpe  of 
Clerks  of  parish  Churches  will  needes  make  him  selfe 
the  father  of  interludes." 

Bathyllus  was  the  name  of  an  inferior  verse-maker 
or  poetaster  who  lived  during  the  reign  of  Augustus 
Caesar.  Greene  uses  his  name  here  tO'  represent  the 
type  of  the  uneducated  fellow  to  whom  was  attrib- 
uted the  authorship  of  certain  interludes — the  early 
name  for  Plays  or  Dramas — and  tells  us  that  the 
reputed  author  was  only  a  man-of-straw. 

(2)  In  1589  was  published  an  anonymous  work 
entitled  "  The  Arte  of  Englishe  Poesie."  It  was 
written  some  four  years  earlier,  and  it  is  supposed 
that  George  Puttenham,  a  courtier,  was  the  author. 
The  work  is  a  most  excellent  treatise  on  language, 
rhetoric,  composition,  and  style.  Professor  Arber, 
in  the  Introduction  to  his  reprint,  states  that  "  our 
author  was  the  Archbishop  Trench  of  his  age,"  and 
refers  to  him  as  "  this  high  bom,  high  bred,  highly 
cultivated,  courtly  Crichton." 

In  Chapter  VIII  the  author  discusses  the  repu- 
tation poets  held  at  that  time,  and  tells  us  "  how  they 
now  become  contemptible  and  for  what  causes."  He 
goes  on  to  state  (Arber,  page  37)  : 

"  Now  also  of  such  among  the  Nobilitie  or  gentrie 
as  be  very  well  seene  in  many  laudable  sciences,  and 
especially  in  making  of  Poesie,  it  is  so  come  to  passe 
that  they  have  no  courage  to  write  and  if  they  have, 
yet  are  they  loath  to  be  a  knowen  of  their  skill.  So 
as  I  know  very  many  notable  Gentlemen  in  the  Court 
4  49 


SHAKSPERE  AND  SIR  WALTER  RALEGH 

that  have  written  commendably  and  suppressed  it 
agayne,  or  els  suffred  it  to  be  publisht  without  their 
owne  names  to  it:  as  if  it  were  a  discredit  for  a 
Gentleman  to  seeme  learned,  ai^d  to'  shew  himself 
amorous  of  any  good  Arte." 

It  is  probable  that  in  many  cases  the  real  author 
who  employed  the  Bathyllus  as  his  factotum  or 
amanuensis  occupied  the  position  of  patron  or  bene- 
factor to  the  man  in  question.  The  Bathyllus  m.ay, 
in  some  instances,  have  been  a  writer  of  more  or  less 
ability,  or,  on  the  other  hand,  he  may  have  been  the 
man  of  little  ability  described  by  Greene. 

(3)  Thomas  Nashe  was  the  author  of  many 
pamphlets,  one  of  which,  published  in  1592',  is  en- 
titled Pierce  Penilesse.  In  this  work  (McKerrow,  I, 
page  243)  Nashe  states  : 

"  Manye  writers  and  good  wits  are  given  to  com- 
mend their  patrons  and  benefactors,  some  for 
prowesse,  some  for  policie,  others  for  the  glorie  of 
their  Ancestrie  and  exceeding  bountie  and  liberalitie ; 
but  if  my  unable  pen  should  ever  enterprise  such  a 
continuate  taske  of  praise,  I  woulde  embowell  a  num- 
ber of  those  wind  puft  bladders,  and  disfurnish  their 
bald-pates  of  the  periwigs  Poets  have  lent  them,  that 
so  I  might  restore  glorie  to  his  right  inheritance,  and 
these  stoln-titles  to  their  true  owners." 

The  nobleman  whom  Nashe  addressed  in  these 
lines  was  probably  Ferdinando  Stanley,  fifth  Earl 
of  Derby.  His  brother  William,  who  two  years  later 
succeeded  him  as  Earl,  is  known  to  have  written 
Plays  for  the  common  players  in  the  year  1599.  Our 
knowledge  of  this  fact  is  obtained  solely  from  a  dis- 
patch written  by  a  foreign  ambassador  then  residing 

50 


ELIZABETHAN  LITERATURE 

in  London  and  addressed  to  his  home  government  on 
the  continent.  The  dispatch  was  intercepted  and 
found  its  way  into  the  English  archives.  We  are 
thus  placed  in  possession  of  the  information — the 
writing  of  Plays  and  by  this  cultured  nobleman — 
of  which  not  the  slightest  trace  of  evidence  exists 
elsewhere,  and  of  which  we  should  have  been  wholly 
ignorant  but  for  this  accidental  interception  and 
preservation.  The  discovery  was  made  by  Mr. 
James  Greenstreet,  a  noted  antiquarian  of  his  day, 
who  was  so  impressed  by  it  that  he  founded  thereon 
a  theory  of  the  authorship  of  the  "  Shakespeare  " 
Plays  by  this  Earl  of  Derby,  and  discussed  the  same 
in  three  papers  in  the  Genealogist  for  April  and 
July,  1891,  and  January,  1892.  Mr.  Sidney  Lee 
comments  on  this  discovery  in  an  article  in  The  Nine- 
teenth Century  and  After  (May,  1906,  page  763), 
in  which  he  remarks  that  "  it  is  incapable  in  the  pres- 
ent state  of  our  knowledge  of  any  satisfactory  ex- 
planation," and  adds  that  "  the  historian  of  the 
Elizabethan  drama  can  only  accept  such  a  piece  of 
information  with  a  vacant  face  of  wonder ;  it  merely 
serves  to  bring  home  to  him  the  imperfections  of  his 
present  knowledge." 

We  are  now  prepared  to  draw  the  following  con- 
clusions from  the  foregoing: 

(1)  During  the  latter  part  of  Elizabeth's  reign 
it  was  the  custom  for  certain  writers  to  publish  their 
Poems  or  Plays  under  the  name  of  a  Bathyllus,  who 
"  set  his  name  to  their  verses,"  or  interludes. 

(2)  According  to  the  above  data,  this  custom  was 
in  vogue  at  a  period  just  prior  to,  if  not  contem- 
poraneous with,  the  date  at  which  the  earliest  of  the 

51 


SHAKSPERE  AND  SIR  WALTER  RALEGH 

"  Shakespeare  "  Plays  were  written.  Without  doubt 
it  continued  throughout  the  reign  of  Elizabeth. 
How  much  later  it  was  the  fashion  for  courtiers  to 
conceal  their  authorship  it  is  difficult  to  determine. 
The  fact  that  King  James  himself  was  a  voluminous 
writer,  and  published  many  works,  may  have  had 
some  influence  in  modifying  this  custom. 

(8)  The  reason  for  concealment  is  clearly  given  by 
Greene  and  especially  by  Puttenham.  It  was  the 
custom  then  for  men  of  rank  to  circulate  their  pro- 
ductions, in  the  form  of  written  manuscripts,  among 
their  friends ;  it  was  evidently  considered  beneath 
.their  dignity  to  publish  broadcast  to  the  world. 

Phoebe  Sheavyn,  in  her  Literary  Profession  in  the 
Elizabethan  Age  (Chapter  VII),  has  drawn  atten- 
tion to  this.  As  she  remarks,  with  all  his  professed 
love  for  poetry,  the  Elizabethan  gentleman  despised 
the  professional  poet.  The  lamentable  truth  is  that, 
in  this  great  poetic  age,  the  common  conception  of 
poetry  was  low  and  trifling.  It  was  to  avoid  the  sus- 
picion of  living  by  his  pen  that  the  gentleman-poet 
refrained  from  publishing.  "  It  is  ridiculous,"  says 
the  learned  Selden,  "  for  a  lord  to  print  verses :  'tis 
well  enough  to  make  them  to  please  himself,  but  to 
make  them  public  is  foolish."  The  dramatist  was, 
if  possible,  in  even  worse  case.  Sir  Thomas  Bodley 
expressly  stipulated  that  play-books  should  not  be 
admitted  into  the  Bodleian  collection.  To  a  certain 
extent  a  literary  reputation  was  held  to  be  undesir- 
able to  a  courtier  seeking  advancement  either  in 
aff'airs  of  state  or  in  the  field.  Such  a  man  was  likely 
to  be  considered  more  or  less  of  a  carpet  knight. 
One  of  the  reasons  given   for  withholding  the  ap- 

52 


ELIZABETHAN  LITERATURE 

pointment  of  Lord  Mount  joy  to  the  command  of  the 
English  forces  in  Ireland  in  1598  was  that  "  he  was 
too  much  drowned  in  book-learning — too  bookish." 

(4)  The  writers  who  thus  concealed  their  author- 
ship were  men  of  rank  and  position.  According  to 
Greene  they  were  "  writers  of  calling  and  gravitie ;  " 
according  to  Puttenham  they  were  prominent  cour- 
tiers— "  notable  gentlemen  in  the  court ;  "  according 
to  Nashe,  such  a  nobleman  may  have  been  the  Sixth 
Earl  of  Derby  known  to  have  been  a  dramatist  a  few 
years  later,  or  may  have  been  his  brother,  Ferdin- 
ando  Stanley,  the  Fifth  Earl. 

(  5  )  The  person  under  whose  name  the  works  were 
published  Greene  describes  as  an  ass  who  is  made 
proud  by  this  underhand  brokerage — a  man  so 
ignorant  that  he  cannot  write  true  English  without 
the  help  of  clerks  of  parish  churches.  Should  any- 
one wonder  how  it  could  have  been  possible  for  a  man 
of  Shakspere's  type  to  play  the  role  he  did,  he  will 
be  satisfied  by  the  removal  of  all  embarrassing 
doubts  through  Greene's  clear  statement  that  just 
such  a  person  was  employed  for  such  purposes. 

Nashe  refers  contemptuously  to  these  men  as 
"  wind  puft  bladders,"  reminding  us  of  what  Mark 
Twain  says  of  the  expression  of  the  Stratford  bust, 
on  p.  132  of  his  entertaining  Is  Shakespeare  Dead? 

But  the  important  fact  derived  from  Nashe's  tes- 
timony is  that  the  Bathyllus  was  often  an  actor.  In 
other  words,  when  a  courtier  desired  to  hide  his 
identity,  he  selected,  in  some  cases,  an  actor  like 
Shakspere  as  a  mask  in  publishing.  Be  it  noted  that 
Nashe  states  that  in  order  to  restore  the  stolen  titles 
to  their  true  owners,  he  would  not  only  embowel  a 

63 


SHAKSPERE  AND  SIR  WALTER  RALEGH 

number  of  these  wind  puft  bladders,  but  would  also 
"  disfurnish  their  bald-pates  of  the  periwigs  Poets 
have  lent  them." 

What  is  meant  by  this  reference  to  periwigs? 
The  commentators  of  Hamlet  give  us  the  answer  in 
their  note  on  this  passage  (III,  ii,  10)  : 

"  O,  it  offends  me  to  the  soul  to  hear  a  robustious 
periwig-pated  fellow  tear  a  passion  to  tatters,"  etc. 

To  this  Steevens  made  the  following  comment: 
"  In  the  time  of  Shakespeare  players  most  generally 
seem  to  have  worn  periwigs ;  wigs  were  not  common 
in  use  till  the  reign  of  Charles  II."  Steevens  further 
quotes  from  one  of  Ben  Jonson's  plays :  "  None 
wear     .      .     .     periwigs  but  players  and  pictures." 

Accordingly  it  is  clear  that  Nashe,  in  speaking  of 
the  periwigs  that  Poets  have  lent  these  men,  and  in 
referring  to  the  stolen  titles  and  the  true  owners,  is 
alluding  to  actors  as  the  men-of-straw,  under  whose 
name  the  real  Poets  had  concealed  their  "  glorie." 
The  fact  that  the  Bathyllus  was  often  an  actor  is 
further  supported  by  Greene's  testimony  in  his 
Groatsworth  of  Wit  printed  one  year  after  his  state- 
ment above.  He  there  tells  us  that  "  Shake-scene  " 
was  "  one  of  those  puppets  that  speak  from  our 
mouth,  those  antics  garnished  in  our  colours  .  .  . 
the  upstart  crow  beautified  with  our  feathers." 
These  figurative  expressions  translated  into  plain 
English  are  equivalent  to  Nashe's  "  periwigs  "  and 
stolen  titles.  They  show  that  both  Nashe  and  Greene 
were  expressing  their  scorn  of  some  actor  who  was 
sailing  under  false  colors  as  an  author. 

Miss  Jane  Addams,  in  her  Newer  Ideals  of  Peace, 
refers  (page  9)  to  "  the  London  sho^vman  who  used 


ELIZABETHAN  LITERATURE 

to  exhibit  two  skulls  of  Shakespeare — one  when  he 
was  a  youth  and  went  poaching,  another  when  he  was 
a  man  and  wrote  plays.  There  was  such  a  striking 
difference  between  the  roystering  boy  indulging  in 
illicit  sport  and  the  mature  man  who  peopled  the 
London  stage  with  all  the  world,  that  the  showman 
grew  confused  and  considered  two  separate  acts  of 
creation  less  improbable  than  that  such  an  amazing 
change  should  have  taken  place." 

The  more  we  know  of  the  writers  of  the  conven- 
tional biographies  of  Shakspere,  the  more  we  should 
admire  the  London  showman  with  his  two'  skulls. 
For  these  biographers  are,  to  a  man,  perfectly  famil- 
iar with  the  facts  just  cited  from  Greene,  Nashe, 
and  Puttenham,  and  would  justly  resent  any  impu- 
tation to  the  contrary  as  a.  slur  upon  their  scholar- 
ship. Had  the  showman  been  equally  well  informed, 
and  had  he  been  told  by  Mr.  Sidney  Lee,  for  instance, 
that  Shakspere  was  separated  by  impassable  social 
barriers  from  the  publisher  Thorpe,  he  would  have 
replied  that  this  is  flatly  contradicted  by  the  Strat- 
fordian's  known  environment  during  his  entire  life. 

Had  he  read  Professor  Herford's  statement  that 
the  dedication  of  Lwcrece  to  the  Earl  of  Southamp- 
ton in  1594  shows  that  there  existed  a  warm  and 
affectionate  friendship  between  the  noble  Earl  and 
the  actor,  he  would  have  replied  that  it  is  more  likely 
that  the  signature  "  William  Shakespeare "  ap- 
pended to  the  dedication  was  a  pseudonym ;  and  he 
would  have  supported  his  view  by  citing  the  fact 
that  ten  years  later,  in  1604,  we  find  the  man  in  ques- 
tion in  a  procession,  wearing  the  same  red  cloth  that 
was  worn  by  kitchen  employees. 

65 


SHAKSPERE  AND  SIR  WALTER  RALEGH 

Had  he  been  asked  by  Messrs.  Wyndham  and 
Tyler,  the  editors,  severally,  of  works  on  the  Sonnets, 
to  believe  that  the  actor  had  an  amour  with  a  maid 
of  honour  to  Queen  Elizabeth,  and  that  his  rival  was 
the  Earl  of  Pembroke,  he  would  have  replied  that 
"  Willm;  Shak  "  did  indeed  have  an  amour — ^not  with 
a  maid  of  honour,  but  with  a  depraved  woman  of 
the  city,  and  that  his  rival  was  the  unspeakable 
Burbage,  as  shown  by  Manningham's  Diary.  Fur- 
thermore, to  the  assertion  that  the  actor  had  urged 
Pembroke  to'  marry  "  for  the  love  of  me  "  he  would 
have  entered  a  denial,  and  would  have  demanded 
proof  that  Shakspere  had  ever  urged  any  one  to 
marry,  other  than  an  apprentice  to  a  wigmaker. 

We  can  account  for  this  Jekyll  and  Hyde  career 
only  by  twisting  and  straining  the  facts,  in  the 
effort  to  convert  a  biography  into  a  romance ;  or  we 
can  account  for  it  through  the  Elizabethan  practice 
of  concealment  of  authorship  by  substitution. 

Some  contemporaneous  testimony  showing  Shaks- 
pere's  position  as  a  poseur  in  literature  has  come  to 
us.  Ben  Jonson's  Epigram  on  Poet-Ape  may  be  cited : 

ON    POET-APE 

Poor  Poet-Ape,  that  would  be  thought  our  chief, 

Whose  works  are  e'en  the  frippery  of  wit. 
From  brokage  is  become  so  bold  a  thief. 

As  we,  the  robb'd,  leave  rage,  and  pity  it. 
At  first  he  made  low  shifts,  would  pick  and  glean, 

Buy  the  reversion  of  old  plays,  now  grown 
To  a  little  wealth,  and  credit  in  the  scene. 

He  takes  up  all,  makes  each  man's  wit  his  own, 
And  told  of  this,  he  slights  it.    Tut,  such  crimes 

The  sluggish,  gaping  auditor  devours ; 
56 


ELIZABETHAN  LITERATURE 

He  marks  not  whose  'twas  first,  and  after  times 

May  judge  it  to  be  his,  as  well  as  ours. 
Fool!  as  if  half-eyes  will  not  know  a  fleece 
From  locks  of  wool,  or  shreds  from  the  whole  piece. 

This  Epigram,  with  others,  was  published  in 
1616.  A  license  for  the  publication  of  the  First 
Book  of  these  Epigrams  was  obtained  in  1612. 

"  Ape  "  was  the  Elizabethan  term  for  actor  or 
player,  and  was  constantly  so  used ;  "  Poet-ape," 
accordingly,  is  a  poet-actor.  It  is  almost  certain 
that  the  Stratfordian  is  referred  to.  The  Epigram 
evidently  was  written  at  some  time  in  the  latter  part 
of  Shakspere's  career  in  London,  as  the  dates  show. 
He  has  now  grown  to  a  little  wealth  and  credit  in  the 
scene,  and  would  be  thought  our  chief.  His  works, 
however,  are  but  the  frippery  of  wit,  and  he  himself 
excites  pity  rather  than  anger  at  his  bold  thievery. 

John  Davies  of  Hereford  also  has  a  similar  Epi- 
gram, generally  accepted  as  referring  to  Shakspere. 
I  quote  from  Grosart's  Chertsey  Worthies  Library, 
John  Davies  of  Hereford,  Vol.  II,  p.  28  (  The  Scourge 
of  Folly).  This  Epigram  w^is  written  between 
March  10,  1610,  and  January  1,  1612  (New  Style). 

AGAINST    AESOP    THE    STAGE-PLAYER 
Epig.  180 
I  came  to  English  Aesop  (on  a  tide) 

As  he  lay  tirde  (as  tirde)  before  to  [the]  play: 
I  came  unto  him  in  his  flood  of  pride; 

He  then  was  King,  and  thought  I  should  obay. 
And  so  I  did,  for  with  all  reverence,  I 

As  to  my  Sovereigne  (though  to  him  unknowne) 
Did  him  approach;  but  loe,  he  cast  his  Eye, 
As  if  therein  I  had  presumption  showne: 
57 


SHAKSPERE  AND  SIR  WALTER  RALEGH 

I,  like  a  Subject  (with  submisse  regard) 

Did  him  salute,  yet  he  regreeted  mee 
But  with  a  Nod,  because  his  speech  he  spar'd 

For  Lords  and  Knights  that  came  his  Grace  to  see. 
But  I  suppos'd  he  scorn'd  me,  by  which  scorne 

I  deemed  him  to  be  some  demi-god ; 
(That's  more  then  King  (at  least)  that  thoughts  dis- 
cerne) 

And  mark'd  my  fained  fawnings  with  a  Nod. 
For,  I  well  knew  him  (though  he  knew  not  me) 

To  be  a  player,  and  for  some  new  [few]  Crownes 
Spent  on  a  Supper,  any  man  may  bee 

Acquainted  with  them,  from  their  Kings  to  Clownes. 
But  I   (as  Aron  with  the  Golden  Calfe) 

Did  grosse  idolatry  with  him  commit: 
Nay  my  offence  was  more  then  his  by  halfe. 

He  erd  against  his  will,  but  I  with  wit: 
For  Wit  me  taught  (I  thought,  for  proof e  of  folly) 

To  try  conclusions  on  this  doting  Asse; 
I  him  ador'd  too  much,  but  he  (unholly) 

Took't  on  him  smoothly ;  But  well,  let  that  passe. 
His  golden  Coate  his  eyes  dim'd,  I  suppose. 
That  he  could  not  well  see  my  Velvet  hose. 
But  if  I  ere  salute  him  so  againe, 
Crorvne  hivi,  and  Coches-comhe  my  crowne  for  my  paine. 

To  this  Henry  Brown  remarks  {The  Sonnets  of 
Shakespeare  Solved,  page  21)  :  "  It  would  appear, 
from  this  narrative,  that  Davies  obtained  admission 
among  the  guests  who  were  assembling  at  the  '  Mer- 
maid,' and  that  Shakespeare  was  expecting  some 
noble  personage,"  etc.  This  is  the  old  fiction  of 
Shakspere  at  the  Mermaid  which,  as  already  shown, 
is  based  upon  no  evidence  and  is  purely  of  modem 
inyention.  It  is  clear  that  Davies  saw  the  Stratford 

58 


y 


ELIZABETHAN  LITERATURE 

actor,  probably  in  the  theatre  dressing  room,  attired 
in  his  golden  suit  ready  to  act  the  part  of  a  King. 
Davies  was  well  known  as  a  minor  poet  and  especially 
as  a  writing  teacher.  Through  his  profession  he  was 
admitted  into  the  best  society,  having  been  instructor 
to  the  son  of  the  Earl  of  Northumberland  and  to 
Henry,  Prince  of  Wales,  son  of  King  James.  In 
1613  he  married  the  widow  of  Sir  Amyas  Preston, 
Knight.  In  his  account  of  his  interview  with 
Shakspere,  accordingly,  it  is  evident  that  Davies 
is  amused  at  the  fellow's  ridiculous  pomposity,  and 
turns  the  whole  thing  off  with  a  laugh,  stating,  "  if 
I  e'er  salute  him  so  again  you  may  crown  me  with  a 
fool's  cock's-comb." 

But  the  interesting  points  in  Davies's  testimony 
are,  first,  that  it  is  here  shown  that  about  1610—11 
Shakspere  was  posing  as  something  more  than  an 
actor,  and  that  Lords  and  Knights  came  to  see  him; 
and,  second,  that  Davies  ridicules  his  pretensions, 
stating  that  he  well  knew  him  to  be  a  player,  and 
calling  him  a  doting  ass. 

Dr.  Grosart's  comment  on  this  Epigram  (I.e.  In- 
troduction, p.  Ivi)  is  instructive  as  an  illustration  of 
that  mental  strabismus  which  afflicts  all  Shaksperian 
critics  and  editors  whenever  they  discuss  the  actual 
facts  of  the  life  of  this  man-of-straw.  Dr.  Grosart 
observes :  "  Still  further :  in  the  Scourge  of  Folly  is 
another  (so-called)  Epigram,  that  adds  new  signifi- 
cance and  new  pathos  to  Shakespeare's  sense  of  deg- 
radation on  his  enforced  association  as  an  '  actor.'  " 

As  a  reply  to  this  it  is  only  necessary  to  quote  the 
third  line  of  Davies's  Epigram :  "  I  came  unto  him  in 
his  flood  of  pride."   Davies  himself  thus  contradicts 

59 


SHAKSPERE  AND  SIR  WALTER  RALEGH 

Grosart's  absurd  idea  that  Shakspere  experienced 
any  sense  of  degradation  in  associating  with  actors ; 
on  the  contrary  he  was  proud  of  his  profession. 

In  a  manuscript  pocket-book  once  belonging  to 
Archdeacon  Thomas  Plume,  there  is  an  Epitaph 
which,  on  the  authority  of  John  Hacket,  Bishop  of 
Lichfield,  Shakspere  wrote  on  Ben  Jonson : 

"  Here  lies  Benjamin 
With  little  hair  upon  his  chin 
Who  while  he  lived  was  a  slow  thing. 
And  now  he  is  dead  is  nothing." 

No  wonder  that  Ben  characterized  the  actor's 
efforts  as  "  the  frippery  of  wit." 

Another  epigrammatic  effusion  of  William  Shaks- 
pere of  Stratford  is  now  in  the  Bodleian  (MS.  Ash- 
mole,  38,  page  180).  It  is  likewise  an  Epitaph, 
transcribed  probably  about  the  time  of  the  actor's 
death : 

"  On  John  Combe  a  covetous  rich  man,  Mr.  Wm. 
Shak-spear  wright  this  att  his  request  while  hee  was 
yet  liveing  for  his  epitaphe : — 

Who  lies  in  this  tombe? 
Hough,  quoth  the  devil,  'tis  my  sone  John  a'Combe. 
Finis. 

But  being  dead,  and  making  the  poore  his  heireres, 
hee  after  wrightes  this  for  his  epitaphe : — 
Howere  he  lived  judge  not. 
John  Combe  shall  never  be  forgott, 
While  poor  hath  memorye,  for  hee  did  gather 
To  make  the  poore  his  issue:  hee  their  father 
As  record  of  his  tythes  and  seedes 
Did  crowne  him  in  his  latter  needes. 

Finis.     W.  Shak." 
60 


ELIZABETHAN  LITERATURE 

We  have  the  following  reasons  for  believing  that 
this  was  written  by  Shakspere.  In  the  first  place, 
John  Combe,  like  Shakspere,  was  a  native  of  Strat- 
ford. Like  him  also,  he  was  a  money-lender.  Shaks- 
pere had  known  Combe  for  many  years,  having  pur- 
chased land  from  him  in  1602.  When  Combe  died 
in  July,  1614,  he  left  a  legacy  to  Shakspere  in  his 
will.  And  when  Shakspere  died,  two'  years  later, 
he  left  his  sword  to  Thomas  Combe,  apparently  a  son 
of  John.  During  Combe's  lifetime  there  appears  to 
have  been  at  some  time  some  friction  between  the  two 
— hence  the  first  lines  of  the  foregoing — but  after 
his  death  Shakspere  composed  the  second  Epitaph. 
But  should  there  be  any  doubt  as  to  the  author- 
ship, it  should  be  removed  by  the  signature  "  W. 
Shak."  It  was  in  this  abbreviated  form  that  the 
actor's  name  was  sometimes  spelled  by  others  as  well 
as  himself.  Thus  on  November  4,  1598,  Abraham 
Sturley  of  Stratford  wrote  that  he  hoped  "  that  our 
countrieman  Wm  Shak  would  procure  us  monie;  " 
while  again  in  1612  Shakspere  signed  his  name  to  a 
legal  document  as  "  Willm  Shaks." 

In  conclusion,  I  desire  to  add  a  word  regarding 
this  Elizabethan  practice  of  concealment  of  author- 
ship. 

It  is  impossible  to  tell  to  what  extent  the  word 
"  Shakespeare  "  was  used  as  a  mere  pen  name,  or 
to  what  extent  the  man  himself  was  employed  as  a 
factotum  or  Bathj^llus.  Nor  can  we  definitely  state 
how  many  understood  the  true  situation  or  were  de- 
ceived therein  at  that  time.  It  is  possible  that  the 
name  "  Shakespeare  "  was  at  first  used  as  a  pseu- 
donym only;  that  it  continued  to  appear  on  the 

61 


SHAKSPERE  AND  SIR  WALTER  RALEGH 

quarto  editions  of  the  Plays  until  James  came  to  the 
throne  in  1603;  that  thereafter  the  real  author  pre- 
vented as  far  as  was  in  his  power  the  publication 
of  any  editions  of  his  later  Dramas ;  that  a  certain 
amount  of  confusion  as  to'  the  identity  of  the  author 
may  always  have  existed;  that  the  man  of  the 
theatre,  Shakspere,  seeing  the  way  open,  may  have 
posed  and  may  have  been  allowed  to  pose  either  as  a 
dramatist  or  as  an  earlier  Belasco  or  promoter  of 
the  "  Shakespeare  Plays ;  "  that  after  Shakspere's 
death  the  family  or  friends  of  the  real  author,  in 
order  to'  prevent  interference  by  a  hostile  King, 
published  under  the  name  of  this  man  of  the  theatre, 
now  seven  years  dead,  the  Dramas  of  the  First  Folio 
— twelve  of  them  printed  for  the  first  time — and  that 
they  dedicated  this  Volume  to  the  Earl  of  Pembroke, 
who  had  been,  and  whose  mother  had  been,  a  hfelong 
friend  of  the  real  author. 

It  is  not  possible  ±o  speak  with!  certainty  of  the 
methods  adopted  for  concealment;  for  in  order  to 
effect  that  concealment  it  was  necessary  that  the 
truth  should  be  hidden.  Nor  is  it  possible  for  any 
one  person  pursuing  such  an  inquiry  to  compass  the 
entire  field,  to  trace  back  every  current  of  thought 
to  the  source,  or  to  produce  all  the  historical  facts 
on  which  corresponding  allusions  in  the  Dramas  are 
based.  But  sufficient  evidence  will  be  forthcoming,  I 
think,  to  make  a  strong  case.  We  are  about  to  pur- 
sue the  study  of  the  Sonnets  and  Plays  by  the  induc- 
tive method.  The  marrying  of  the  verse  to  the  life  of 
the  author  is  the  sub j  ect  in  view.  I  shall  endeavor  to 
establish  the  truth  of  Emerson's  remark,  that  the 
only  biographer  of  Shakspere  is  Shakspere. 

62 


^^Is'Cj^j.:-  "^ 


-^■:i 


^■x^-^s. 


'.on  -:0 


PART  II 
SIR  WALTER  RALEGH 

AND 

THE  AUTHORSHIP 


CHAPTER  IV 

Concerning  TopiCAii,  Ali^usions 

(Note. — I  shall  hereinafter  have  occasion  to  refer  to 
the  name  of  the  actor  Shakspere  as  well  as  to  the  pseu- 
donym "Shakespeare."  In  order  to  avoid  confusion  I  shall 
spell  these  names  in  the  manner  given,  using  inverted 
commas  in  the  latter  case  to  indicate  the  pen-name.  In  quot- 
ing from  other  writers  the  name  will  be  given  as  they  speU  it. ) 

It  is  necessary  to  give  some  general  information 
touching  this  subject  of  topical  allusions;  for  but 
little  has  been  written  thereon,  and  that  little  is  con- 
nected principally  with  the  dates  of  composition 
of  the  Plays.  As  a  guide  to  the  story  of  the  Sonnets, 
certain  allusions,  it  is  true,  have  been  studied.  But 
regarding  the  authorship  of  the  works  but  small 
attention  has  been  given  the  subject  except  by 
writers  favoring  the  Baconian  theory. 

Much  misunderstanding'  exists  here.  For  in- 
stance, a  friend  of  mine,  to  whom  I  had  submitted 
the  study  of  a  certain  allusion  in  Hamlet,  wrote  me 
that  he  did  not  see  how  it  could  have  been  possible  for 
the  author  of  that  great  tragedy  to  embody  therein 
such  ephemeral  matters  as  were  the  events  and  topics 
of  the  day.  This  misunderstanding  is  not  peculiar  to 
the  general  reader ;  it  obtains  even  in  the  case  of  men 
who  have  been  specialists  in  the  study  of  the  subject. 

The  late  Dr.  Horace  Howard  Fumess,  for  ex- 
ample, makes  the  following  statement  in  his  Vario- 
rum Edition  of  The  Merchant  of  Venice  (page  277), 
in  discussing  the  date  of  composition  of  that  Play: 

"  It  is  not  by  such  facts  as  these  that  we  may 
5  65 


SHAKSPERE  AND  SIR  WALTER  RALEGH 

hope  to  find  out  the  man,  Shakespeare.  If  he  is  not  to 
be  found  in  the  plays  themselves,  he  is  not  to  be  found 
in  dates  when  he  wrote  them.  And  he  is  not  in  the 
plays  themselves — if  he  were,  the  plays  would  fall  to 
the  level  of  Ben  Jonson's  or  Francis  Beaumont's. 

"  It  is  because  Shakespeare  is  not  there  that  his 
plays  are  heaven-high  above  the  plays  of  all  other 
dramatists.  .  .  .  His  genius,  his  intellect  is 
everj'where,  in  all  and  through  all,  from  the  first 
line  to  the  last ;  but  he,  the  man,  the  individuaHty,  is 
nowhere." 

This  statement — that  the  dramatist  is  not  to  be 
found  in  the  Plays,  and  that  his  individuality  is 
nowhere  present — is  unquestionably  erroneous. 
Such  a  view  is  founded  on  the  belief  that  the  author 
was  William  Shakspere.  This  belief  is  shared  with 
Dr.  Furness  by  nearly  every  editor  and  biographer 
in  the  world.  Almost  to  a  man  they  support  the 
conservative  view.  It  is  only  natural,  therefore, 
that  these  gentlemen  should  conclude  that,  since 
the  life-story  of  the  Stratfordian  was  distinctly  com- 
monplace, and  since  then,  indeed,  he  had  no  history 
of  importance  to  record,  he  could  not  have  recorded 
it  in  the  Plays  they  think  he  wrote.  They  cannot, 
therefore,  find  the  man  Shakspere  there.  Had  they 
believed  that  one  of  Shakspere's  fellows — for  in- 
stance, John  Hemmings — had  been  the  author,  they 
would  have  been  forced  to  a  like  conclusion,  namely, 
that  they  could  not  find  the  man  Hemmings  there. 
These  writers  find  it  impossible  to  coordinate  the 
material,  the  life,  the  spirit,  the  atmosphere  of  the 
Dramas  with  the  mean  biographical  facts  in  the  life 

66 


CONCERNING  TOPICAL  ALLUSIONS 

of  the  reputed  author.  They  take,  therefore,  one  of 
three  courses.  Either,  like  Dr.  Furness,  in  the  vol- 
ume and  on  the  page  quoted  above,  they  tell  us :  "  Of 
the  real  life  (of  Shakspere)  we  know  absolutely 
nothing,  and  I,  for  one,  am  genuinely  thankful  that 
it  is  so ;  "  or,  like  Mr.  Sidney  Lee,  they  state  that 
of  the  life  of  no  Elizabethan  dramatist  are  we  better 
informed,  and  then  proceed  to  ignore  or  belittle  the 
force  of  the  conclusions  legitimately  drawn  from  that 
Life  (as  I  have  shown  in  Part  I  of  this  volume)  ;  or, 
thirdly,  like  the  editor  of  the  Encyclopcedia  Britan- 
nica,  already  quoted,  they  are  not  adverse  to  twist- 
ing and  straining  the  biographical  facts,  "  in  order 
to  make  the  Shakesperian  authorship  intelligible." 

The  reader  will  perceive,  as  we  proceed,  to  what  a 
great  extent  the  interpretation  of  much  that  is  con- 
tained in  the  Plays  depends  upon  the  authorship.  He 
will  see  how  completely  the  inductive  study  of  these 
many  allusions  is  estopped  by  the  antiquated  belief. 

It  is  true  that  one  or  two  writers  have  alluded  to 
the  custom  of  the  poet  of  inserting  matters  per- 
sonal in  his  works.  Over  a  century  ago  Malone 
seems  to  have  seen  a  glimmering  of  the  truth  when 
he  referred  to  "  Shakespeare's  "  "  frequent  allusions 
to  the  events  of  his  own  time,  which  he  has  described 
as  taking  place  wherever  his  scene  happens  to  lie." 
In  1875  Dr.  A.  W.  Ward  noted  the  topical  treat- 
ment of  these  dramatic  themes,  "  of  which  historical 
and  literary  research  are  only  beginning  to  gauge 
the  force."  But  their  words  fell  on  deaf  ears,  and 
in  the  pursuance  of  my  work  I  have  found  the  field 
but  little  cultivated  save  by  the  Baconians  and  by 

67 


SHAKSPERE  AND  SIR  WALTER  RALEGH 

those  who  have  been  engaged  in  studying  the  Son- 
nets or  the  dates  of  composition  of  the  Plays. 

"  How  may  a  passage  be  recognized  as  a  topical 
allusion?  "  is  a  question  the  reader  may  ask.  Gen- 
erally as  follows: 

(1)  The  passage  in  question  is  in  no  way  con- 
nected with  the  plot  of  the  Drama.  Thus,  as  will 
appear  later,  we  have  in  Romeo  and  Juliet^  I,  v, 
34—42,  an  allusion  to  the  marriage  of  "  Lucentio  " 
(the  second  Earl  of  Southampton)  to  the  daughter 
of  Viscount  Montague,  in  the  year  1569: 

Capulet.     How  long  is't  now^  since  last  yourself  and  I 
Were  in  a  mask.'' 

2  Cap.  By'r  Lady,  thirty  years. 

Cap.  What^  man !  'tis  not  so  much,  'tis  not  so  much : 

'Tis  since  the  nuptial  of  Lucentio, 
Come  Pentecost  as  quickly  as  it  will. 
Some   five   and  twenty  years;   and   then   we 
mask'd. 

2  Cap.      'Tis  more,  'tis  more,  his  son  is  elder,  sir. 
His  son  is  thirty. 

Cap.  Will  you  tell  me  that? 

His  son  was  but  a  ward  two  years  ago. 

This  passage  is  not  related  to  the  plot  of  the 
tragedy,  and  can  be  cut  out  of  the  text  without 
in  any  way  breaking  the  continuity  of  the  plot. 

(2)  The  passage  is  not  connected  with,  or  based 
on,  the  source  from  which  the  story  of  the  Play  is 
derived.  In  this  instance  we  find  that  Romeo  and 
Juliet  is  largely  based  on  Brooke's  Romeus  and 
Juliet  (1562).     But  there  is  nothing  in  Brooke's 

68 


CONCERNING  TOPICAL  ALLUSIONS 

poem  relating  to  this  marriage;  in  fact,  the  poem 
was  published  before  the  marriage  took  place. 

(3)  Frequently  a  definite  period  of  months  or 
years  is  stated  in  the  Play  to  have  elapsed  since  the 
occurrence  of  the  event  alluded  to.  Knowing  the 
date  of  composition  of  the  Play,  we  are  able  to  check 
this  date  by  counting  backwards,  and  thus  confirm 
the  allusion.  For  example,  in  this  passage  the  mar- 
riage of  "  Lucentio  "  is  stated  to  have  occurred 
"  some  five  and  twenty  years  "  prior  to  1596,  which 
is  the  year  in  which  the  Play,  as  we  now  have  it,  was 
written.  The  "  some  five  and  twenty  years  "  before 
1596  is  a  sufficient  approximation  to  the  actual  date 
of  the  marriage  (1569)  to  be  confirmatory. 

(4)  Often  a  biographical  or  personal  fact,  re- 
lating to  the  individual  referred  to,  is  given.  Thus 
the  son  of  "  Lucentio  "  is  stated  to  have  been  "  a 
ward ; "  moreover  his  age,  in  1596,  is  given  as 
twenty-three  years.  ("  His  son  was  but  a  ward  two 
years  ago.")  Both  statements  in  the  Drama  are 
true.  The  third  Earl  of  Southampton  was  a  ward 
of  Lord  Burghley.  He  was  born  in  1573,  and  was 
therefore  23  years  of  age  in  1596.  Incidentally  we 
have  thus  a  confirmation  of  the  date  of  composition 
of  the  present  version  of  Romeo  and  Juliet. 

We  may  conclude,  accordingly,  that  the  allusion 
to  "  Lucentio  "  is  a  topical  allusion,  and  that  the 
person  referred  to  was  Henry  Wriothesley,  the  sec- 
ond Earl  of  Southampton.  Furthermore,  the  "  son  " 
was  a  third  Earl  of  Southampton,  to  whom  the  two 
Poems,  Venus  and  Adonis  and  Lucrece,  were  dedi- 
cated two  or  three  years  earlier. 

69 


SHAKSPERE  AND  SIR  WALTER  RALEGH 

I  have  chosen  this  Romeo  and  Juliet  passage  as 
an  example  of  the  methods  used  in  detecting  an 
allusion,  because  the  passage  illustrates  the  four 
characteristics  just  described.  It  is  by  no  means 
usual  to  find  an  allusion  so  clearly  pointing  to  the 
actual  event  by  all  these  indications.  And  yet  not 
a  single  editor,  critic,  or  commentator  of  this  trag- 
edy has  been  able  to  trace  any  connection  between 
the  above  lines  of  the  Play  and  the  marriage  of 
]  569 :  they  have  been  debarred  by  the  knowledge 
that  the  actor  Shakspere  (in  their  opinion  author  of 
the  Play)  was  but  five  years  old  in  1569,  and  did  not 
leave  Stratford  until  more  than  fifteen  years  later. 

The  allusions  about  to  be  studied  in  this  Part  II 
are  those  that  are  connected  with  Ralegh's  career 
with  a  certainty  admitting  of  little,  if  any,  doubt. 
Allusions  that  may  or  may  not  be  so  connected  have 
been  passed  over.  In  this  latter  class  a  given 
allusion  may  fail  to  be  substantiated  for  the  reason 
that  the  historical  fact  on  which  it  is  based  has  never 
been  recorded,  or  the  record  of  the  fact  has  been  lost. 
Yet,  on  the  other  hand,  the  fact  may  be  on  record, 
and  I  may  have  failed  to  find  it :  others  may  be  more 
fortunate  in  their  quest.  Regarding  this  entire  sub- 
ject, it  is  hardly  necessary  to  observe  that  it  consti- 
tutes a  field  to  be  investigated  not  by  one  mind,  but 
rather  by  a  thousand  minds  ;  for  the  field  is  very  wide. 

One  or  two  of  the  following  Chapters  are  based 
on  contributions  to  Notes  and  Queries  (London)  and 
a  few  on  contributions  to  New  Sli  ah e spear e ana 
(Westfield,  New  Jersey,  U.  S.  A.).  The  majority, 
however,  appear  for  the  first  time. 

70 


CHAPTER  V 

Sir  Walter  Ralegh 

It  is  not  possible  to  give  in  this  volume  even  a 
condensed  account  of  Sir  Walter's  life.  The  biogra- 
phies of  Stebbing,  Edwards,  Gosse,  and  others  are 
readily  accessible.  I  have  thought  it  desirable,  how- 
ever, to  present  for  the  reader's  information  a  few 
abstracts  from  the  works  of  those  who  have  studied 
the  career  of  this  remarkable  man.  For  this  pur- 
pose I  append  some  extracts  taken  mostly  from 
j\Ioulton's  Library  of  Literary  Criticism,  Vol.  I, 
pages  590-608,  Sir  Walter  Raleigh,  1552-1618. 

Page  606.  Edmund  Spenser,  1589,  Sonnets  Ad- 
dressed to  Various  Noblemen,  etc.,  The  Faerie 
Queene,  Bk.  I. 

To  thee,  that  art  the  sommers  Nightingale, 

Thy  soveraine  Goddesses  most  deare  delight. 

Why  doe  I  send  this  rusticke  Madrigale, 

That  may  thy  tuneful  eare  unseason  quite? 

Thou  onely  fit  this  Argument  to  write, 

In  whose  high  thoughts  Pleasure  hath  built  her  bowre, 

And  dainty  love  learned  sweetly  to  endite. 

M}^  rimes  I  know  unsavory  and  soAvre, 

To  taste  the  streams  that,  like  a  golden  showre. 

Flow  from  thy  fruitful  head,  of  thy  love's  praise; 

Fitter,  perhaps,  to  thunder  iMartiall  stowre. 

When  so  thee  lift  thy  lofty  ]SIuse  to  raise: 

Yet,  till  that  thou  thy  Poeme  wilt  make  knowne, 

Let  thy  faire  Cinthia's  praises  be  thus  rudely  showne. 

Page   599.  Edward   Phillips,    1575,    Theatrum 
Anglic anorum,  ed.  Brydges,  page  285. 

Sir  Walter  Ralegh,  a  person  both  sufficiently  known 
in  history  and  by  his  History  of  the  World,  seems  also 

71 


SHAKSPERE  AND  SIR  WALTER  RALEGH 

by  the  character  given  him  by  the  author  of  the  Art 
of  English  Poetry  to  have  exprest  himself  more  a  poet 
than  the  little  we  have  extant  of  his  poetry  seems  to 
import. 

Page  592.  James  Howell,  1645,  Letter  to  Carew 
Raleigh,  Raleigh's  Works,  Vol.  VIII. 

I  have  heard  his  enemies  confess,  that  he  was  one  of 
the  weightiest  and  wisest  men  that  this  island  ever  bred ; 
Mr.  Nath.  Carpenter,  a  learned  and  judicious  author, 
was  not  in  the  wrong  when  he  gave  this  discreet  character 
of  him:  "  Who  hath  not  known  or  read  of  this  prodigy 
of  wit  and  fortune.  Sir  Walter  Rawleigh,  a  man  infor- 
tunate  in  nothing  else  but  in  the  greatness  of  his  wit 
and  advancement,  whose  eminent  worth  was  such,  both 
in  domestic  policy,  forren  expeditions,  and  discoveries 
in  arts  and  literature,  both  practic  and  contemplative, 
that  it  might  seem  at  once  to  conquer  example  and  imi- 
tation.? " 

Page  592.  Sir  Robert  Naunton,  1630?  Frag- 
menta  Regalia,  ed.  Arber,  pages  47,  48. 

Sir  Walter  Rawleigh  was  one  that  (it  seems)  Fortune 
had  pickt  out  of  purpose,  of  whom  to  make  an  example, 
or  to  use  as  her  Tennis-Ball,  thereby  to  shew  what  she 
could  doe;  for  she  tost  him  up  out  of  nothing,  and  too 
and  fro  to  greatnesse,  and  from  thence  down  to  little 
more  than  to  that  wherein  she  found  him  (a  bare  Gentle- 
man). Not  that  he  was  lesse,  for  he  was  well  descended, 
and  of  good  alliance,  but  poor  in  his  beginnings.  .  .  . 
He  had  in  the  outward  man  a  good  presence,  in  a  hand- 
some and  well  compacted  person,  a  strong  naturall  wit, 
and  a  better  judgment,  with  a  bold  and  plausible  tongue, 
whereby  he  could  set  out  his  parts  to  the  best  advan- 
tage; and  to  these  he  had  the  adjuncts  of  some  generall 
Learning,  which  by  diligence  he  enforced  to  a  great 

72 


SIR  WALTER  RALEGH 

augmentation  and  perfection;  for  he  was  an  indefati- 
gable Reader,  whether  by  Sea  or  Land,  and  none  of  the 
least  observers  of  men  and  the  times. 

Page  596.  Robert  Louis  Stevenson,  1881,  Vir- 
gifiibus  Piierisque  and  Other  Papers. 

God  has  made  nobler  heroes,  but  he  never  made  a 
finer  gentleman  than  Walter  Raleigh. 

Page  598.  Donald  G.  Mitchell,  1890,  English 
Lands,  Letters,  and  Kings,  from  Elizabeth  to  Anne, 
page  18. 

When  I  consider  his  busy  and  brilliant  and  perturbed 
life,  with  its  wonderful  adventures,  its  strange  friend- 
ships, its  toils,  its  quiet  hours  with  Spenser  upon  the 
Mulla  shore,  its  other  hours  amidst  the  jungles  of  the 
Orinoco,  its  lawless  gallantries  with  the  court  of  Eliza- 
beth, its  booty  snatched  from  Spanish  galleons  he  set 
ablaze,  its  perils,  its  long  captivities — it  is  the  life  itself 
that  seems  to  me  a  great  Elizabethan  epic,  with  all  its 
fires,  its  mated  couples  of  rhythmic  sentiment,  its  poetic 
splendors,  its  shortened  beat  and  broken  pauses  and 
blind  turns,  and  its  noble  climacteric  in  a  bloody  death 
that  is  without  shame  and  full  of  the  largest  pathos. 

Pages  598-9.  Martin  A.  S.  Hume,  1897,  Sir 
Walter  Ralegh  (Builders  of  Greater  Britain), 
page  31. 

Probably  his  persuasive  eloquence  was  one  of  his 
greatest  gifts,  and  his  personal  fascination  must  have 
been  marvellous;  for  when  he  chose,  which  in  his  arro- 
gance he  rarely  did,  he  could  bring  even  those  who 
hated  him  to  his  side.  He  took  no  care,  however,  to  be 
popular,  for  he  always  scorned  and  contemned  the  peo- 
ple, and  on  the  death  of  Elizabeth  he  was  probably  the 
best  hated  man  in  England. 

73 


SHAKSPERE  AND  SIR  WALTER  RALEGH 

Page  606.  John  Alfred  Langford,  1861,  Prison 
Books  and  Their  Authors,  page  91. 

Looking  at  the  activity  of  his  life,  his  wars,  his  voy- 
ages, his  parliamentary  duties,  one  is  astonished  at  the 
amount  of  work  which  he  did.  But  the  work  was  not 
all.  Some  of  the  ablest  state  papers  of  the  time 
were  drawn  up  by  him.  In  history,  politics,  philoso- 
phy, science,  and  poetry,  his  mind  was  also  employed; 
and  his  pen  productive  of  memorable  works.  His  writ- 
ings are  voluminous.  He  wrote,  besides  a  great  history, 
on  the  Prerogatives  of  Parliament;  on  Trade;  on  Ship- 
ping; on  the  State  of  Spain;  on  the  Life  and  Death  of 
Mahomet;  on  the  Life  and  Death  of  William  the  Con- 
queror; on  almost  every  subject  interesting  to  man. 

Page  594.  Thomas  Babington  Macaulay,  1832, 
Niires'  Memoirs  of  Burghley,  Critical  and  Miscel- 
laneous Essays. 

Ralegh,  the  soldier,  the  sailor,  the  scholar,  the  courtier, 
the  orator,  the  poet,  the  historian,  the  philosopher,  some- 
times reviewing  the  Queen's  Guards,  sometimes  giving 
chase  to  a  Spanish  galleon,  then  answering  the  chiefs  of 
the  country  party  in  the  House  of  Commons,  then  again 
murmuring  one  of  his  sweet  love-songs  too  near  the  ears 
of  Her  Highness's  maids  of  honour,  and  soon  after 
poring  over  the  Talmud,  or  collating  Polybius  with  Livy. 

Page  598.  William  Stebbing,  1891,  Sir  Walter 
Ralegh,  page  '7. 

It  will  scarcely  be  denied  that  there  has  always  been 
room  for  a  new  presentment  of  Ralegh's  personality. 
That  the  want  has  remained  unsatisfied  after  all  the 
efforts  made  to  supply  it  is  to  be  imputed  less  to  the 
defects  in  the  writers,  than  to  the  intrinsic  difficulties 
of  the  subject.     Ralegh's  multifarious  activity,  with  the 

74 


SIR  WALTER  RALEGH 

width  of  the  area  in  which  it  operated,  is  itself  a  dis- 
turbing element.  It  is  confusing  for  a  biographer  to  be 
required  to  keep  at  once  independent  and  in  unison  the 
poet,  statesman,  courtier,  schemer,  patriot,  soldier,  sailor, 
freebooter,  discoverer,  colonist,  castle-builder,  historian, 
philosopher,  chemist,  prisoner,  and  visionary.  The  vari- 
ety of  Ralegh's  powers  and  tendencies,  and  of  their  exer- 
cise, is  the  distinctive  note  of  him,  and  of  the  epoch 
which  needed,  fashioned,  and  used  him.  A  whole  band 
of  faculties  stood  ready  in  him  at  any  moment  for 
action.  Several  generally  were  at  work  simultaneously. 
For  the  man  to  be  properly  visible,  he  should  be  shown 
flashing  from  more  facets  than  a  brilliant.  Few  are 
the  pens  which  can  vividly  reflect  versatility  like  his. 
.  .  .  Never  surely  was  there  a  career  more  beset  with 
insoluble  riddles  and  unmanageable  dilemmas.  At  each 
step  in  the  relation  of  the  most  ordinary  incidents, 
exactness  of  dates  or  precision  of  events  appears  unat- 
tainable. Fiction  is  ever  elbowing  fact,  so  that  it  might 
be  supposed  contemporaries  had  with  one  accord  been 
conspiring  to  disguise  the  truth  from  posterity.  The 
uncertainty  is  deepened  tenfold  when  motives  have  to  be 
measured  and  appraised.  Ralegh  was  the  best  hated 
personage  in  the  kingdom. 

Page  597.  Samuel  R.  Gardiner,  1883,  History 
of  England  from  the  Accession  of  James  I  to  the 
Outbreak  of  the  Civil  War,  Vol.  I,  page  88. 

It  is  difficult  for  us  at  this  distance  of  time  to  realise 
the  feelings  with  which  Ralegh  was  regarded  by  the 
great  mass  of  his  contemporaries.  To  us  he  is  the  man 
who  had  more  genius  than  all  the  Privy  Council  put 
together.  At  the  first  mention  of  his  name,  there  rises 
up  before  us  the  remembrance  of  the  active  mind,  the 
meditative  head,  and  the  bold  heart,  which  have  stamped 
themselves  indelibly  upon  the  pages  of  the  history  of 
75 


SHAKSPERE  AND  SIR  WALTER  RALEGH 

two  continents.  Above  all,  we  think  of  him  as  the  vic- 
tim of  oppression,  sobered  down  by  the  patient  endur- 
ance of  an  undeserved  imprisonment,  and  as  finally  pass- 
ing into  his  bloody  grave,  struck  down  by  an  unjust 
sentence.  To  the  greater  number  of  the  men  amongst 
whom  he  moved,  he  was  simply  the  most  unpopular  man 
in  England.  Here  and  there  were  to  be  found  a  few 
who  knew  his  worth.  Those  who  had  served  under  him, 
like  his  faithful  Captain  Keymis,  and  those  who,  like 
Sir  John  Harrington,  merely  met  him  occasionally  in 
social  intercourse,  knew  well  what  the  loyal  heart  of  the 
man  really  was.  But  by  the  multitude,  whom  he  de- 
spised, and  by  the  grave  statesmen  and  showy  courtiers 
with  whom  he  jostled  for  Elizabeth's  favour,  he  was  re- 
garded as  an  insolent  and  unprincipled  wretch,  who 
feared  neither  God  nor  man,  and  who  would  shrink  from 
no  crime  if  he  could  thereby  satisfy  his  ambitious  de- 
sires. There  can  be  no  doubt  that  these  charges,  frivolous 
as  they  must  seem  to  those  who  knew  what  Ralegh's  true 
nature  was,  had  some  basis  in  his  character.  Looking 
down  as  he  did  from  the  eminence  of  his  genius  upon 
the  actions  of  lesser  men,  he  was  too  apt  to  treat  them 
with  the  arrogance  and  scorn  which  they  seldom  de- 
served, and  which  it  was  certain  that  they  would  resent. 

Page  601.  Martin  A.  S.  Hume,  1897,  Sir  Walter 
Ralegh  (Builders  of  Greater  Britain),  P^ge  104. 

Himself  one  of  the  noblest  of  Elizabethan  singers, 
rivalling  Sidney,  even  approaching  Shakespeare  in  his 
Sonnets,  perhaps  the  greatest  service  he  rendered  to 
English  poetry  was  in  snatching  from  obscurity  the  poet 
Spenser,  and  promoting  the  publication  of  The  Faerie 
Queene. 

Page  606.     William  Godwin,  1797,  The  Enquirer. 
A  writer  more  learned  than   Shakespear,  more  pol- 
ished by  the  varieties  of  human  intercourse,  and  that 

76 


SIR  WALTER  RALEGH 

with  persons  of  the  highest  eminence  and  station^  than 
Hooker. 

Page  608.  Martin  A.  S.  Hume,  1897,  Sir  Walter 
Ralegh  (Builders  of  Greater  Britain),  page  39. 

He  could  dangle  at  Court  and  bandy  compliments  as 
well  as  the  most  empty-headed  fine  gentleman,  but  he 
gave  up  only  five  hours  of  the  twenty-four  to  sleep,  and 
spent  every  hour  he  could  snatch  in  study.  His  reading 
must  have  been  omnivorous  for  his  breadth  of  view,  his 
depth  of  knowledge,  and  his  profundity  of  thought — 
far  in  advance  of  his  contemporaries — prove  him  to  have 
been  perhaps  the  most  universally  capable  Englishman 
that  ever  lived — a  fit  contemporary  of  Shakespeare  and 
Bacon. 

Page  599.  John  Fiske,  1897,  Old  Virginia  and 
Her  Neighbours,  Vol.  I,  page  200. 

Spain  drank  a  deep  draught  of  revenge  when  the  hero 
of  Cadiz  and  Fayal  was  beheaded  in  the  Palace  Yard 
at  Westminster;  a  scene  fit  to  have  made  Elizabeth 
turn  in  her  grave  in  the  Abbey  hard  by.  A  fouler  judi- 
cial murder  never  stained  the  annals  of  any  country. 

Epitaph,  from  the  Tablet  in  St.  Margaret's 
Cliurch,  Westminster. 

Within  Y^  Chancel  of  this  Chvrch  was  Interred 

The  Body  of  the 

Great  S'"  Walter  Raleigh  K' 

on  the  Day  he  was  Beheaded 

in  Old  Palace  Yard,  Westminster, 

Oct^  29*''  An°  Dom.  1618. 

Reader      Shvld  yov  reflect  on  his  errors 

Remember  his  many  virtves 

And  that  he  was  a  mortal. 

77 


SHAKSPERE  AND  SIR  WALTER  RALEGH 

Sir  John  Knox  Laughton  and  Mr.  Sidney  Lee, 
Dictionary  of  National  Biography,  sub  nom. 
Ralegh. 

Throughout  his  career  Ralegh  solaced  his  leisure 
by  writing  verse,  much  of  which  is  lost.  All  that  is 
positively  known  to  survive  consists  of  thirty  short 
pieces,  many  of  which  were  originally  published 
anonymously,  or  under  his  initials,  in  poetical  an- 
thologies, like  the  Phoenix  Nest,  1573;  England's 
Helicon,  1600;  or  Davison's  Poetical  Rhapsody, 
1608.  The  best  collection  is  that  of  Dr.  Hannah, 
1875  (Aldine  edition  of  the  British  Poets). 

David  Lloyd,  Statesmen  of  England,  1665,  states 
that  Hampden  before  the  civil  wars  had  transcribed 
at  his  cost  3452  sheets  of  Ralegh's  writings.  That 
much  is  lost  is  known.  Only  three  prose  works  were 
published  in  his  lifetime:  A  Report  of  the  Truth  of 
the  Fight  about  the  Isles  of  the  Azores,  1591 ;  The 
Discovery  of  the  Empyre  of  Guiana,  1596;  The 
History  of  the  World,  which  he  carried  down  to  130 
B.C.,  1614.  A  frontispiece  is  explained  in  some 
anonymous  verses  {The  Mind  of  the  Front)  by  Ben 
Jon  son. 

Numerous  essays  on  political  themes  were  circu- 
lated in  manuscript  in  his  lifetime  and  published 
after  his  death:  The  Prerogative  of  Parliaments  in 
England,  1657 ;  Advice  to  his  Son,  1632  ;  The  Prince 
or  Maxims  of  State,  presented  to  Prince  Henry, 
1642;  Essays  upon  the  first  Invention  of  Shipping, 
etc.,  1650;  The  Cabinet  Council,  published  by  John 
Milton,  1618.  Many  other  unprinted  pieces  reap- 
pear in  the  only  collected  edition  of  Ralegh's  works, 
Oxford,  1829,  8  vols.,  8vo. 

78 


CHAPTER  VI 

Sonnets  CLin  and  cliv 

Early  in  1909  I  wrote  a  paper  on  Sonnets  CLIII 
and  CLIV  which  was  published  in  New  Shakespeare- 
ana,  Vol.  VIII,  page  64ff.  My  analysis  of  the  Son- 
nets led  to  the  conclusion,  drawn  from  purely  induc- 
tive grounds,  that  the  city  and  baths  of  Bath, 
England,  were  referred  to ;  that  Queen  Elizabeth 
("A  maid  of  Dian's,"  "  The  fairest  votaress  ")  was 
expected  at  Bath;  that  the  date  was  1602,  and  that 
the  season  of  the  year  was  the  late  summer. 

But  although  these  points  were  confirmed  by  the 
historical  data,  I  was  unable  at  that  time  to  make 
even  a  conjecture  as  to  the  identity  of  the  author. 
I  could  see  that  he  was  at  Bath  in  the  summer  of 
1602,  that  he  was  sick,  and  that  he  came  there  for 
cure.  Furthermore,  the  two  Sonnets  were  addressed 
by  him  to  the  Queen.  But  I  was  entirely  in  the 
dark,  and  made  the  foregoing  analysis  guided  only 
by  the  internal  evidence  of  the  two  Sonnets  them- 
selves.    There  the  matter  rested. 

For  nearly  a  year  I  was  on  the  lookout  for  any 
data  that  might  throw  light  on  the  subject,  when, 
early  in  1910,  happening  to  pick  up  a  copy  of 
Gosse's  Life  of  Ralegh,  I  found  (page  127)  the 
following : 

"  On  August  9th  (1602)  he  (Ralegh)  left  Jersey 
in  his  ship  the  *  Antelope  '  fearing,  if  he  stayed  any 
longer,  to  exhaust  her  English  stores,  and  get  no 
more  '  in  this  poor  Island.*     On  landing  at  Wey- 

79 


SHAKSPERE  AND  SIR  WALTER  RALEGH 

mouth  on  the  12th,  he  wrote  Cecil  and  Northumber- 
land to  meet  him  at  Bath.  .  .  .  We  are  there- 
fore not  surprised  to  find  him  at  Bath  on  September 
15th,  so  ill  that  he  can  barely  write  a  note  to  Cecil." 
My  analysis  of  the  two  Sonnets  indicated  that 
"  Shakespeare  "  was  at  Bath  in  the  late  summer  of 
1602.  Ralegh  was  there  at  that  identical  time. 
"  Shakespeare  "  was  sick ;  so  likewise  was  Ralegh. 
The  two  Sonnets  were  addressed  to  Queen  Elizabeth 
by  "  Shakespeare ;  "  and  we  know  that  more  than 
a  dozen  years  earlier  Edmund  Spenser  had  alluded 
to  Sir  Walter  as 

the  sommers  Nightingale, 
Thy  soveraine  Goddesses  most  deare  delight, 

further  stating  that  Ralegh  was  the  source  of 

streams  that,  like  a  golden  showre. 
Flow  from  thy  fruitfull  head  of  thy  love's  praise. 

No  man,  therefore,  was  more  likely  to  have  in- 
dited these  two  Sonnets  to  the  Queen  than  the  poet 
who  was  her  favorite. 

Inasmuch  as  the  deductions  from  the  foregoing 
are  in  accord  with  the  biographical  facts,  we  have 
at  the  outset  reason  for  at  least  suspecting  that 
Ralegh's   pen-name  was   "  Shakespeare." 

All  tliis,  however,  may  have  been  merely  a  coinci- 
dence. Let  us  then  proceed  with  the  examination 
of  these  poems. 


80 


CHAPTER  VII 

The  Lameness  of  "  Shakespeare  " 

So  I,  made  lame  by  fortune's  dearest  spite, 

Sonnet  XXXVII. 
Speak  of  my  lameness,  and  I  straight  will  halt, 

Sonnet  LXXXIX. 

Capeli.  and  others  conjectured  that  Shakspere 
was  literally  lame.  But  most  modern  writers  give  to 
the  word  "lameness"  a  figurative  interpretation  only. 
This  is  an  easy  way  out  of  the  difficulty  pointed  out 
by  Dr.  Furness  of  coordinating  the  facts  of  Shaks- 
pere's  life  with  the  verse  attributed  to  him.  Had  the 
Stratfordian  been  known  to  be  physically  lame,  not 
a  solitary  critic  would  have  dreamed  of  suggesting 
such  a  metaphorical  interpretation — I  believe  I  am 
quite  safe  in  making  this  positive  statement. 

Sir  Walter  placed  these  two  references  to  his  phy- 
sical infirmity  in  his  Sonnets  because,  in  a  battle  in 
1596,  he  had  been  severely  wounded  in  his  leg  and  re- 
mained lame  to  the  end  of  his  life.  In  his  letter  giv- 
ing an  account  of  the  Cadiz  fight  of  1596,  he  writes : 

*'  I  received  a  grievous  blow  in  my  leg,  interlaced 
and  deformed  with  splinters  in  the  fight. 
For  my  own  part,  I  have  gotten  a  lame  leg  and  a 
deformed."     (Edwards,  Life  and  Letters  of  Ralegh, 
Vol.  II,  pages  154,  156.) 

Twenty-two  years  after  this  sea-fight  he  still 
suffered  from  the  Cadiz  wound.  (Stebbing,  Life 
of  Ralegh,  page  347.) 

The  Sonnets  were  written  some  years  only  after 
he  was  wounded.  His  statement  that  he  was  "  made 
lame  by  fortune's  dearest  spite "  was,  therefore, 
literally  true. 

6  81 


CHAPTER  VIII 

The  Countess  of  Pembroke 

Thou  art  thy  mother's  glass,  and  she  in  thee 
Calls  back  the  lovely  April  of  her  prime. 

Sonnet  III. 

The  evidence  now  under  consideration  and  about 
to  be  considered  indicates  that  the  Sonnets  were 
written  during  a  period  beginning  with  the  year 
1598  and  continuing  for  four,  or  possibly  five,  years. 
This  period  of  composition  bars  the  Earl  of  South- 
ampton as  the  addressee  of  these  poems ;  for  South- 
ampton, born  in  1573,  was  by  this  time  too  old 
to  be  described  as  "  My  lovely  boy,"  "  My  rose," 
and  to  be  likened  to  "  cherubim."  On  the  other  hand, 
the  Earl  of  Pembroke,  born  in  1580,  could  then 
justly  be  described  as  "  the  world's  fresh  ornament." 

As  is  well  known,  the  first  seventeen  Sonnets  are 
appeals  to  the  beautiful  youth  to  marry.  Richard 
Grant  White  and  Thomas  Tyler,  severally,  have 
suggested  that  they  were  composed  by  "  Shakes- 
peare "  at  the  instance  of  the  Countess  of  Pembroke. 
The  former  writes : 

"  But  I  have  thought  that  the  first  seventeen  may 
have  been  written  at  the  request  of  a  doting  mother, 
who  wished  to  persuade  a  handsome  wayward  son 
into  an  early  marriage.  Why  should  one  man  be- 
seech another  to  take  a  wife  with  such  tender  and 
impassioned  importunity?  Why  should  Shakes- 
peare have  entreated  a  youthful  friend,  whom  he 
loved  with  a  love  passing  that  of  a  woman,  to  marry 

82 


THE  COUNTESS  OF  PEMBROKE 

*  for  love  of  me?  '  There  seems  to  be  no  imaginable 
reason  for  seventeen  such  poetical  petitions.  But 
that  a  mother  should  be  thus  solicitous  is  not  strange, 
or  that  she  should  long  to  see  the  beautiful  children 
of  her  own  beautiful  offspring."  (Richard  Grant 
White,  Works  of  SJwkespcare,  Vol,  I,  page  152.) 

Tyler  in  his  volume  presents  a  letter  from  the 
Countess  of  Pembroke  to  Lord  Burghley,  dated 
August  16th,  1597,  in  which  she  speaks  of  "  my 
desire  "  that  her  son  should  marry  Burghley's  young 
granddaughter.     Tyler  adds : 

"  And  the  idea  that  the  Countess,  William  Her- 
bert's mother,  had  something  to  do  with  these  Son- 
nets being  written,  gains  increased  credibility  from 
the  correspondence."  (Tyler,  Shakespeare's  Son- 
nets, pages  45-49.) 

I  quote  the  foregoing  merely  to  present  the  case. 
But  I  ask,  with  White,  "  Why  should  Shakspere 
have  entreated  a  youthful  friend  to  marry  '  for  love 
of  me  ?  '  "  What  had  this  actor — whom  we  find 
a  few  years  later  accepting  his  wages  of  two  shillings 
a  day  and  sharing  his  allowance  of  red  cloth  in  a 
procession  with  men  of  the  employee  class — what  had 
he  to  do  with  the  matrimonial  affairs  of  a  descendant 
of  the  great  houses  of  Pembroke,  Sidney,  and 
Northumberland  ? 

On  the  other  hand,  the  one  poet  of  that  time  who 
would  have  been  likely  to  second  the  Countess  in 
her  wishes  regarding  her  son  was  Sir  Walter  Ralegh. 
The  very  close  relations  between  him  and  the  Pem- 
broke family  will  be  shown  in  discussing  matters 
concerning  the  publication  of  the  First  Folio.      I 

83 


SHAKSPERE  AND  SIR  WALTER  RALEGH 

shall  only  say  here  that  he  had  formerly  been  a  lover, 
or  at  least  an  admirer,  of  the  Countess.  In  Dudley 
Carlton's  letter  to  Chamberlain,  dated  November 
27th,  1603,  when  Ralegh  was  under  sentence  of 
death,  he  writes : 

"  I  do  call  to  mind  a  pretty  secret  that  the  Lady 
of  Pembroke  hath  written  to  her  son  Philip,  and 
charged  him  of  all  her  blessing  to  employ  his  own 
credit  and  his  friends,  and  all  he  can  do  for  Ralegh's 
pardon ;  and  though  she  does  little  good,  yet  she  is 
to  be  commended  for  doing  her  best  in  showing 
"veteris  vestigia  ftammce/'  (Williams,  Court  and 
Times  of  James  the  First,  Vol.  I,  page  26.) 

"  The  vestiges  of  an  old  passion."  How  much 
these  words  tell  us !  Do  they  not  give  color  to  the 
views  of  White  and  Tyler.?  Moreover,  is  it  not  likely 
that  the  poet  whom  we  identify  in  the  two  Sonnets 
to  the  Queen  from  Bath,  and  again  in  the  reference 
to  his  lameness,  should  be  the  same  poet  who,  in  these 
same  poems,  referred  to  his  old  and  true  friend  in 
the  lines  that  head  this  Chapter.''  Are  we  forever 
to  talk  of  coincidences?  This  beautiful  compliment 
paid  to  the  Countess,  calling  back 

the  lovely  April  of  her  prime, 

was  just  such  a  compliment  as  she  might  have  ex- 
pected to  receive  from  the  man  who'  was  her  one- 
time admirer,  who  was  the  favorite  of  the  Queen, 
who  was  the  most  brilliant  and  accomplished  cour- 
tier in  England. 


CHAPTER  IX 

The  Evidence  of  Despondency  and  Disappoint- 
ments IN  Life  Shown  in  the  Sonnets 

As  Hallam  remarks :  "  There  seems  to  have  been 
a  period  of  Shakespeare's  life  when  his  heart  was 
ill  at  ease,  and  ill  content  with  the  world  of  his  own 
conscience." 

This  period  begins  with  the  Plays  written  about 
the  opening  of  the  seventeenth  century.  The  same 
marked  note  of  melancholy  is  present  in  many  of 
the  Sonnets.  It  is  an  argument  for  dating  these 
poems  at  this  time,  rather  than  at  an  earlier  period 
when  the  gay  comedies  were  produced. 

Even  a  cursory  examination  will  show  that  there 
are  a  number  of  words  and  phrases  that  are  common 
to  the  Sonnets  and  to  Hamlet — the  greater  part 
of  which  was  written  in  1601.     Thus 

What  potions  have  I  drunk  of  Siren  tears, 
DistiU'd  from  limbecks  foul  as  hell  within. 

Sonnet  CXIX. 
Whilst  they,  distill'd 
Almost  to  jelly  with  the  act  of  fear. 

Hamlet:  I,  ii,  204. 

The  expression  "limbecks  (alembics  or  retorts) 
foul  as  hell  within  "  shows  familiarity  on  the  part 
of  the  poet  with  chemical  operations.  Any  one  who 
has  seen  the  nasty  mess  frequently  remaining  in  a 
retort  after  a  distillation,  will  recognize  the  appro- 
priateness of  the  qualification,  "  foul  as  hell  within." 
The  expression  is  quite  technical.  Sir  Walter  was 
interested  in  chemistry.    He  spent  much  of  his  time, 

85 


SHAKSPERE  AND  SIR  WALTER  RALEGH 

when  a  prisoner  in  the  Tower,  in  making  chemical 
distillations  in  his  laboratory.  His  "  great  Cor- 
dial," a  product  of  distillation,  was  celebrated  for 
more  than  a  century  afterwards. - 

Whilst,  like  a  willing  patient,  I  will  drink 
Potions  of  eisel  'gainst  my  strong  infection. 

Sonnet  CXI. 
Woo't  drink  up  eisel?  eat  a  crocodile? 

Hamlet:  V,  i,  299- 

This  is  the  first  occurrence  of  the  word  in  the 
Plays. 

Since  I  left  you,  mine  eye  is  in  my  mind. 

Sonnet  CXIII. 
In  my  mind's  eye,  Horatio. 

Hamlet:  I,  ii,  185. 

All  these  cases  of  correspondence  throw  light  on 
the  date  of  composition  of  the  Sonnets — about 
1601-2. 

Similar  evidence  is  found  in  the  man-delights-not- 
me  frame  of  mind  characteristic  of  the  great  tragedy 
and  these  poems.  In  the  latter  the  poet  writes  as 
one  who  had  evidently  seen  his  best  days.  Ralegh 
was  then  closing  the  first  half  century  of  his  life. 
Take,  for  example.  Sonnet  LXIII : 

That  time  of  year  thou  may'st  in  me  behold. 

Despondency  resulting  from  ill  health  is  marked. 
In  Sonnet  LXXIX  he  speaks  of  "  my  sick  Muse." 

^  John  Aubrey,  Brief  Lives,  Oxford,  1898,  Vol.  II,  page 
182:  "  Sir  Walter  Ralegh  was  a  great  chymist.  .  .  .  He 
made  an  excellent  cordiall,  good  in  feavers,  etc.;  Mr.  Robert 
Boyle  haz  the  recipe,  and  makes  it  and  does  great  cures  by  it." 

86 


EVIDENCE  OF  DESPONDENCY 

Glowing  anticipations  of  death  are  frequent.     For 
instance,  Sonnet  LXXI : 

No  longer  mourn  for  me  when  I  am  dead. 

Numerous  other  Sonnets  bear  like  testimony. 

During  the  period  we  are  considering  Ralegh 
was  anything  but  well.  As  his  biographers  relate, 
he  was  too  ill  to  go  to  Bath  in  1601.  He  was  feeble 
in  health  and  irritable  in  temper  in  1602.  In  the 
late  summer  of  1602,  as  we  have  seen,  he  was  ill  at 
Bath.  In  October  of  that  year  we  find  him  at 
Sherborne  "  in  very  low  spirits."  In  a  letter  of 
this  period,  his  language  is  that  "  of  a  petulant 
invalid,  of  a  man  to  whom  the  grasshopper  has  be- 
come a  burden."     (Gosse,  page  127.) 

All  these  biographical  data  would  account  for  the 
despondent  tone  manifest  in  these  poems.  Also, 
like  the  words  and  phrases  common  to  them  and  to 
Hamlet,  they  help  to  establish  the  date  at  which  the 
Sonnets  were  written. 

Frequent  mention  is  made  by  the  poet  of  jour- 
neys by  sea  and  land  separating  him  from  the  be- 
loved youth.  Between  1599  and  1602,  inclusive, 
Sir  Walter  was  in  Ireland,  in  the  Netherlands,  in 
Jersey  (twice),  in  Cornwall,  London,  Sherborne, 
Bath,  Weymouth  and  other  places.  Again  we  find 
the  dates  in  accord. 

The  evidently  autobiographical  allusions  to  the 
poet's  lack  of  advancement  in  life  and  to  certain 
hostile  criticisms,  have  much  puzzled  the  commen- 
tators : 

Let  those  who  are  in  favor  with  their  stars 
Of  public  honor  and  proud  titles  boast, 
87 


SHAKSPERE  AND  SIR  WALTER  RALEGH 

Whilst  I,  whom  fortune  of  such  honor  bars, 

Unlook'd  for  joy  in  that  I  honor  most. 

Great  princes'  favorites  their  fair  leaves  spread 

But  as  the  marigold  at  the  sun's  eye, 

And  in  themselves  their  pride  lies  buried. 

For  at  a  frown  they  in  their  glory  die. 

The  painful  warrior  famoused  for  fight. 

After  a  thousand  victories  once  foil'd. 

Is  from  the  book  of  honor  razed  quite. 

And  all  the  rest  forgot  for  which  he  toil'd. 

Sonnet  XXV. 

When  in  disgrace  with  fortune  and  men's  eyes, 
I  all  alone  beweep  my  outcast  state. 
And  trouble  deaf  heaven  with  my  bootless  cries. 
And  look  upon  myself,  and  curse  my  fate. 
Wishing  me  like  to  one  more  rich  in  hope,  etc. 

Sonnet  XXIX. 

O,  for  my  sake  do  you  with  Fortune  chide. 
The  guilty  goddess  of  my  harmful  deeds. 
That  did  not  better  for  my  life  provide 
Than  public  means  which  public  manners  breeds. 
Thence  comes  it  that  my  name  receives  a  brand. 

Sonnet  CXI. 

Your  love  and  pity  doth  the  impression  fill 
Which  vulgar  scandal  stamp'd  upon  my  brow.  ' 

Sonnet  CXII. 

It  has  been  said  that  in  the  Sonnets  the  poet  re- 
vealed his  soul ;  and  he  himself  might  have  said  with 
equal  truth  that  the  heart  alone  knows  its  own  bit- 
terness. The  self-revelation  in  the  foregoing  ex- 
tracts is  of  a  remarkable  character — remarkable  in 
that  we  find  therein  references  to  certain  material 
facts  which  clearly  belong  to  the  writer's  personal 


EVIDENCE  OF  DESPONDENCY 

life.  These  allusions  cannot  be  explained  away  by 
the  employment  of  such  adjectives  as  "metaphori- 
cal "  or  "  figurative."  Consequently  we  find  the 
critics  struggling  in  the  usual  morass.  Let  us 
consider  the  first  of  the  above  four  Sonnets : 

Great  princes'  favorites  their  fair  leaves  spread  .  .  . 
For  at  a  frown  they  in  their  glory  die. 

Clearly  an  allusion  to  Ralegh's  own  career.  From 
the  year  1582,  when  he  became  the  favorite  of  Queen 
Elizabeth,  until  1592,  when  she,  enraged  at  his 
marriage,  banished  him  from  the  Court,  Ralegh  had 
the  world  as  his  confectionery.  The  Queen  heaped 
honors  and  riches  upon  him.  It  was  the  glorious 
period  of  his  life.  But  as  her  reign  drew  towards 
the  close,  his  star  shone  less  and  less  bright.  He 
was  restored  to  his  position  at  Court,  but,  as  he 
himself  stated,  "  I  found  my  fortune  at  Court,  to- 
wards the  end  of  Her  Majesty's  reign,  to  be  at  a 
stand."  Elizabeth  died  in  1603.  As  liis  biographer 
Gosse  (page  111)  observes:  "It  is  not  easy  to  see 
v/hy  it  was,  that  in  the  obscure  year  1598,  while  the 
star  of  Essex  was  setting,  that  of  his  natural  rival 
did  not  shine  more  brightly.  But  although  now, 
and  for  the  brief  remainder  of  Elizabeth's  life, 
Ralegh  was  nominally  in  favor,  the  saturnine  old 
woman  had  no  longer  any  tenderness  for  her  Captain 
of  the  Guard.  Her  old  love,  her  old  friendship,  had 
quite  passed  away.  There  was  no  longer  any  ex- 
cuse for  excluding  from  her  presence  so  valuable  a 
soldier  and  so  wise  a  courtier.  But  her  pulses  had 
ceased  to  thrill  at  his  coming."  The  result  was  that 
she   gave   him   nothing.      In    1600   he   was    indeed 

89 


SHAKSPERE  AND  SIR  WALTER  RALEGH 

granted  the  Governorship  of  Jersey,  a  compara- 
tively minor  appointment.  But  his  ambition  to  ob- 
tain a  position  "  of  public  honor  and  proud  titles  " 
was  foiled.  He  desired  to  become  Vice-Chamberlain, 
but  without  success.  He  was  eager  to  be  made  a 
peer,  but  was  met  with  a  direct  refusal.  He  aspired 
to  a  position  on  the  Privy  Council,  but  again  was 
foiled.  As  Gosse  (page  131)  continues:  "He,  who 
of  all  men  hated  most  and  deserved  least  to  be  an 
underling,  was  forced  to  play  the  subordinate  all 
through  the  most  brilliant  part  of  his  variegated 
life  of  adventure."  Truly  he  could  have  referred 
to  himself,  in  this  Sonnet,  as  "  I,  whom  fortune  of 
such  triumph  bars." 

The  same  biographer  continues :  "It  was  only  for  a 
moment, at  Cadiz  or  Fayal,that  by  a  doubtful  breach 
of  prerogative  he  struggled  to  the  surface  to  sink 
again  directly  the  achievement  was  accomplished." 
In  alluding  thus  to  these  great  naval  victories  in 
which  Ralegh  took  a  prominent  part,  it  almost  seems 
that  Gosse  was  commenting  on  the  same  Sonnet : 

The  painful  warrior  famoused  for  fight, 
After  a  thousand  victories  once  foil'd. 

Is  from  the  book  of  honor  razed  quite. 

And  all  the  rest  forgot  for  which  he  toil'd. 

If  these  lines  are  not  subjective  and  personal, 
why  should  "  Shakespeare  "  have  inserted  them.? 

And  then  we  have  Sonnet  III,  in  which  he  asks  his 
friend  to  chide  with  Fortune, 

That  did  not  better  for  my  life  provide 
Than  public  means,  which  public  manners  breeds. 
Thence  comes  it  that  my  name  receives  a  brand. 
90 


EVIDENCE  OF  DESPONDENCY 

What  is  the  meaning  of  this  ? 

Among  the  sources  of  Sir  Walter's  income  were 
the  grants  of  certain  monopolies  which  the  Queen 
bestowed  upon  him — "  the  public  means  "  of  these 
lines.  There  was  much  ado  in  the  Parliament  that 
met  late  in  1601  regarding  this  question  of  monopo- 
lies. Among  those  granted  to  Ralegh  may  be  men- 
tioned the  royalties  from  the  tin  mines  and  the 
Patent  of  the  Weymouth  Office.  The  latter  espe- 
cially was  the  source  of  much  public  discontent  and 
opposition.  Every  wine  shop  in  England  had  to 
pay  him  a  royalty.  So  great  was  this  public  hos- 
tility that  in  1602  Ralegh  wrote  that  he  could  not 
show  his  face  out  of  doors  nor  dare  ride  through 
the  towns  where  the  taverners  dwell.  He  was,  to  the 
multitude,  the  most  unpopular  man  in  England. 
In  1600  he  was  spoken  of  as  "  the  hellish  atheist  and 
traitor."  ^  In  1601,  when  the  Earl  of  Essex  died 
on  the  block,  he  was  regarded  as  a  persecutor  of  that 
popular  favorite  and  was  falsely  accused  of  having 
puffed  out  tobacco  smoke  in  disdain  when  witnessing 
the  execution.^  Many  ballads,  written  in  1603  but 
referring  to  the  year  immediately  preceding,  evince 

^  Gosse,  Ralegh,  page  131,  foot-note:  "Among  Sir  A. 
Malet's  MSS.  we  find  Ralegh  spoken  of,  as  early  as  1600, 
as  '  the  hellish  Atheist  and  Traitor.'  " 

*  Edwards,  Life,  Vol.  I,  page  703  (Ralegh's  Speech  on 
the  scaffold)  :  "  It  was  said  that  I  was  a  persecutor  of  my 
Lord  of  Essex,  and  tliat  I  stood  in  a  window  over  against 
him  when  he  suffered,  and  puffed  out  tobacco  in  disdain 
of  him.  I  take  God  to  witness  that  my  eyes  shed  tears  for 
him  when  he  died.  ...  I  was  afar  off,  in  the  Armoury, 
where  I  saw  him,  but  he  saw  not  me.  And  my  soul  hath 
been  many  times  grieved  that  I  was  not  near  unto  him 
when  he  died,  because  I  understood  that  he  asked  for  me, 
at  his  death,  to  be  reconciled  to  me." 

91 


SHAKSPERE  AND  SIR  WALTER  RALEGH 

the  widespread  rage  of  the  populace,  and  accuse 
Ralegh  of  personal  habits  of  a  character  most  licen- 
tious and  atrocious  (Percy  Society,  Vol.  XV;  Ballad 
Society,  Ballads  from  Manuscripts,  Vol.  11).^ 

Thence  comes  it  that  my  name  receives  a  brand. 

Your  love  and  pity   doth  the  impression  fill 
Which  vulgar  scandal  stamp'd  upon  my  brow. 

In  conclusion,  I  quote  extracts  from  two  letters 
written  by  "Shakespeare"  (Ralegh),  in  which  he 
laments  this  lack  of  advancement. 

In  1602  (exactly  at  the  period  we  are  consider- 
ing) he  writes  to  Cecil :  "  It  grieves  me  to  find  with 
what  difficulty  and  torment  to  myself  I  obtain  the 
smallest  favor."  (Edwards,  Life  and  Letters  of 
Ralegh,  Vol.  II,  page  25'7.) 

In  a  letter  of  about  the  same  period  he  writes  to 
Queen  Elizabeth:  "Your  Majesty  may,  perchance, 
speak  hereof  to  those  seeming  my  great  friends,  but 
I  find  poor  effects  of  that  or  any  other  amity.  For, 
your  Majesty  having  left  me,  I  am  left  all  alone  in 
the  world,  and  am  sorry  that  ever  I  was  at  all. 
What  I  have  done  is  out  of  zeal  and  love,  and  not 
by  any  encouragement :  for  I  am  only  forgotten  in 
all  rights  and  in  all  affairs,  and  mine  enemies  have 
their  zcills  and  discry  over  me'''  {Ibid.,  Vol.  II, 
page  259.) 

Obser\'e  the  sentence  of  Ralegh's  letter, 

I  am  left  all  alone  in  the  world;,  and  am  sorry  that 
ever  I  was  at  all,' 

°  For  examples  of  contemporary  ballads  see  Chapter 
XXV,  page  185ff. 

92 


EVIDENCE  OF  DESPONDENCY 

and  compare  this  with  the  lines  of  the  "  Shakes- 
peare "  Sonnet  quoted  above, 

When   in   disgrace   with   fortune   and   men's   eyes, 
I  all  alone  heweep  my  outcast  state,  etc. 

In  taking  leave  of  the  Sonnets  for  the  time  being  I 
submit  that  the  ensemble  of  evidence  presented  allows 
us  to  draw  the  following  conclusions  : 

(1)  The  reason  why  Shakespearian  students 
have  not  been  able  to  find  the  man  Shakspere  in  the 
verse  is  that  they  have  persistently  credited  the 
authorship  of  that  verse  to  the  wrong  man. 

(2)  The  biographical  facts  presented  in  the  last 
four  Chapters  are  in  accord  with  the  view  that 
Ralegh  was  the  author  of  the  "  Shakespeare  "  Son- 
nets ;  for  no  other  poet  of  that  time  can  be  found 
to  whose  life  and  personality  the  verse-allusions  can 
be  referred  with  such  accuracy  as  to  detail,  and 
such  precision  as  to  dates. 

(3)  The  claims  for  the  Earl  of  Southampton  as 
the  addressee  of  the  Sonnets  appear  to  be  thrown 
out  of  court,  for  reasons  already  given.  On  the  other 
hand,  the  Pembroke  theory  is  at  least  strengthened. 
There  is  nothing  as  regards  the  date  (around  which 
most  of  the  allusions  cluster),  that  militates  against 
the  view  that  the  "Mr.  W.  H."  of  Publisher 
Thorpe's  dedication  was  William  Herbert,  Earl  of 
Pembroke.  Sir  Walter  Ralegh's  close  friendship 
with  that  family  gives  additional  reason  for  believing 
that  the  beloved  youth  was  the  young  Earl — the 
son  of  his  former  flame,  the  Countess. 


93 


CHAPTER  X 

"  Shakespeare  "  and  the  Sea 

The  poet  Thomas  Campbell  in  his  edition  of  the 
Plays  (1838)  observes  (Remarks,  page  xviii)  : 

"  It  is  surprising  that  conjecture  in  its  fertility 
has  never  sent  Shakspeare  on  foreign  voyages  in 
his  youth,  and  made  him  a  seahoy  on  the  high  and 
giddy  mast;  for  I  am  told  that  he  never  mentioned 
nautical  matters  without  an  appearance  of  correct 
skill.  This  remark  was  conveyed  to  me  by  my  friend 
Captain  Glascock,  R.N.,  who  further  observes  that 
*  our  Poet  draws  a  nice  but  palpable  distinction 
between  the  fishermen  and  the  veritable  blue-water 
mariners.  The  fishermen  in  Pericles  are  the  seafar- 
ing folk  of  the  coast.  One  of  these  says  (II,  i,  23)  : 
"  When  I  saw  the  porpoise,  how  he  bounced  and 
tumbled !  They  say  they  are  half  flesh,  half  fish. 
A  plague  on  them,  they  never  come  but  I  look  to  be 
washed  "  {i.e.,  to  have  my  deck  washed  by  the  waves 
of  the  storm).  How  true  the  appearance  of  the 
tumbling  porpoise  which  is  always  portentous  of  a 
gusty  gale !  How  could  he  have  picked  up  this  sea- 
faring fact — a  man  born  and  bred  in  a  perfectly 
inland  country.''  '  " 

In  reply  I  quote  the  Dictionary  of  National  Biog- 
raphy, sub  nom.  "  Ralegh  " :  "  It  was  doubtless 
by  association  with  the  sailors  on  the  beach  at  Bud- 
leigh  Salterton  that  he  (Ralegh)  imbibed  the  almost 
instinctive  understanding  of  the  sea  that  charac- 
terizes his  writings.     Sir  John  Millais  in  his  picture 

94 


"SHAKESPEARE"  AND  THE  SEA 

*  The  Boyhood  of  Ralegh,'  painted  at  Budleigh 
Salterton  in  1870,  represents  him  sitting  on  the 
seashore  at  the  foot  of  a  sunburned  sailor,  who  is 
narrating  his  adventures." 

Every  writer  competent  to  express  an  opinion  on 
the  subject  has  shown  surprise  at  the  remarkable 
familiarity  of  the  poet  with  all  things  maritime. 
Thus  a  critic  writing  in  Chambers's  Edinburgh 
Journal  (March  20,  1852,  page  184)  observes: 
"  He  (Shakespeare)  uses  nautical  terms  frequently 
and  appropriately.  Romeo's  rope  ladder  is  '  the 
high  top-gallant '  of  his  joy.  King  John,  dying 
of  poison,  declares  '  the  tackle  of  his  heart  crack'd  ' 
and  '  all  the  shrouds  wherewith  his  life  should  sail ' 
v/asted  '  to  a  thread.'  Polonius  tells  Laertes,  '  the 
wind  sits  in  the  shoulder  of  your  sail ' — a  technical 
expression,  the  singular  propriety  of  which  a  naval 
critic  has  recently  established;  whilst  some  of  the 
commentators  on  the  passage  in  King  Lear,  descrip- 
tive of  the  prospect  from  Dover  cliffs,  affirm  that  the 
comparison  as  to  apparent  size,  of  the  ship  to  her 
cock-boat  and  the  cock-boat  to  a  buoy,  discovers 
a  perfect  knowledge  of  the  relative  proportion  of  the 
objects  named.  In  Hamlet,  Othello,  The  Tempest, 
Merchant  of  Venice,  Comedy  of  Errors,  Twelfth 
Night,  Winter's  Tale,  Measure  for  Measure,  and 
Pericles,  sea  storms  are  made  accessory  to  the  de- 
velopment of  the  plot  and  sometimes  described  with 
a  force  and  truthfulness  which  forbid  the  belief 
that  the  writer  had  never  witnessed  such  scenes." 

Dr.  Furness  in  his  Variorum  edition  of  The 
Tempest  (page  21)  quotes  the  remarks  of  an  anony- 

95 


SHAKSPERE  AND  SIR  WALTER  RALEGH 

mous  critic  {Shakespeare,  A  Seaman,  St.  Jameses 
Maga.,   July,   1862): 

"  Take  up  your  Shakespeare  and  read  the  open- 
ing scene  of  The  Tempest.  A  ship  is  off  an  unknown 
lee-shore,  labouring  heavily;  a  storm  is  raging; 
lightning  is  flashing;  thunder  is  bellowing;  waves 
are  madly  roaring ;  '  men's  hearts  are  failing  them 
for  fear ;  '  confusion  and  terror  are  holding  a  car- 
nival on  board.  We  appeal  to  all  intelligent  readers 
— and  especially  to  seamen — to  answer  whether  they 
think  it  probable  that  Shakespeare  could  have  in- 
tuitively penned  that  scene  if  he  had  spent  his  life 
entirely  ashore?  The  thing  is  incredible.  We  know 
that  Shakespeare  was  so  marvellously  gifted  that 
he  could  conceive  and  accurately  depict  characters 
and  scenes  of  nearly  every  age  and  kind ;  but  even 
his  transcendent  imagination  had  its  bounds ;  and 
it  is  rather  too  much  to  expect  us  to  credit  that  he 
could  have  written  the  first  scene  of  The  Tempest 
unless  he  had  previously  had  some  practical  ac- 
quaintance with  the  sea,  and  ships,  and  seamen. 
Every  epithet  in  the  scene  is  exactly  proper  and  in 
admirable  keeping;  every  sea-phrase  is  correct; 
every  order  of  the  boatswain's  is  seamanlike  and  pre- 
cisely adapted  to  the  end  in  view."  Dr.  Furness 
himself  in  the  Preface  to  his  Volume  (page  ix)  ob- 
serves :  "  Shakespeare's  seamanship  during  the 
tempest  in  the  First  Scene  is  beyond  criticism.  No 
order  of  the  boatswain  is  superfluous — no  order  is 
omitted  that  skill  can  suggest  to  save  the  craft." 

But  the  best  exposition  of  the  wonderful  knowl- 
edge of  seamanship  shown  by  the  dramatist  is  found 

96 


"SHAKESPEARE"  AND  THE  SEA 

in  Shakespeare^ s  Sea  Terms  Explained  (London, 
1910),  by  W.  B.  Whall,  Master  Mariner. 

"  Any  of  those  possessed  of  an  ordinary  anno- 
tated edition  of  the  Plays,"  he  writes  (page  20), 
"  can  see  for  themselves  that  the  subject  treated 
in  this  little  book  is  one  that  has  hitherto  been 
almoist  entirely  passed  over.  Several  Shakespearean 
critics  have  expressed  the  opinion  to  me  that  such 
a  book  is  wanted.  One  thing  is  certain,  that  the  sea 
expressions  scattered  through  the  Plays  cannot  be 
understood  by  the  ordinary  reader  without  some 
help  of  the  kind  given  here.  I  take  one  of  the  well- 
known  editions  with  notes.  I  find  about  twelve 
words  only  mentioned,  and  these  very  briefly,  and  in 
some  cases  wrongly,  explained ;  many  really  curious 
words  are  passed  over  in  silence,  the  annotator  evi- 
dently not  knowing  their  meaning.  I  have  left  un- 
noticed many  references  to  the  sea  and  ships  which 
present  no  difficulty,  and  have  confined  myself  to 
those  more  technical  passages  which  even  to  a  sea- 
man of  to-day  are  puzzles.  Being  an  old  sailor 
myself  of  the  old  sailing  days,  and  having  made  a 
study  of  these  archaic  terms,  I  am  able  to  dogmatize 
upon  them.  This  study  of  archaic  sea  terms  is 
full  of  pitfalls  for  the  unwary  and  those  with  only 
*  a  little  knowledge  '  of  the  subject." 

As  there  are  considerably  over  one  hundred  of 
these  technical  sea  terms  explained  by  this  writer, 
but  a  few  can  be  given  here.  Quite  interesting  is 
Mr.  Whall's  treatment  of  the  seaman's  "  glass  " 
mentioned  in  The  Tempest  and  AlVs  Well.  In  these 
instances  "  Shakespeare  "  is  supposed  to  have  been 
7  97 


SHAKSPERE  AND  SIR  WALTER  RALEGH 

wrong  in  his  technology,  in  that  he  represents  the 
pilot's  glass  as  measuring  the  duration  of  one  hour 
instead  of  a  half-hour,  which,  we  are  told,  was  the 
correct  measurement  at  this  period.  Some  thirty 
years  ago  Mr.  B.  Nicholson  drew  attention  to  this 
supposed  error  of  the  poet  and  concluded  that 
"  Shakespeare  "  "  never  could  have  been  at  sea."  ^ 
He  has  been  followed  by  all  the  critics  and  commen- 
tators since.  It  is  quite  safe  to  assume  that  none 
of  these  writers  ever  commanded  a  vessel  or  in  other 
ways  was  a  specialist  in  sea  craft. 

Mr.  Whall  tells  us  (page  37):  "Glasses  were 
used  to  keep  the  time;  they  were  hourly  or  half- 
hourly;"  and  again  (page  66),  where  he  is  com- 
menting on  All's  Well,  II,  i,  159-164: 

Ere  twice  the  horses  of  the  sun  shall  bring 
Their  fiery  torcher  his  diurnal  ring; 
Ere  twice  in  murk  and  occidental  damp 
Moist  Hesperus  hath  quench'd  his  sleepy  lamp ; 
Or  four  and  twenty  times  the  pilot's  glass 
Hath  told  the  thievish  minutes  how  they  pass. 

"  Here  a  superficial  reader  with  modern  knowl- 
edge only  might  say,  '  Shakespeare  is  wrong:  the 
sand-glass  used  at  sea  was  half-hourly.*  The 
passage  seems  to  point  to  two  days ;  but  it  may  be 
construed,  as  to  the  sun,  as  meaning  from  noon  to 
noon  or  sunrise  to  sunrise,  and,  regarding  Hesperus, 
as  from  one  setting  to  another,  in  both  cases  twenty- 

®  B.  Nicholson,  Transactions  of  New  Shakespeare  Society, 
1880-2,  Part  I,  page  53:  quoted  by  Dr.  Furness  in  the 
Variorum  edition  of  The  Tempest,  page  255,  note  on  V,  i, 
255. 

98 


"SHAKESPEARE"  AND  THE  SEA 

four  hours.  This  being  so,  Shakespeare  is  correct. 
It  is  true  that  in  later  days  the  time  at  sea  was  kept 
by  half-hour  glasses,  which  were  auxiliaries  to  the 
clock,  when  the  sentry  turned  the  glass  and  struck 
the  bell.  But  in  Elizabethan  times  hour  glasses  were 
in  use,  even  if  half-hour  glasses  were  also  used,  of 
which  there  is  no  proof.  In  French  ships  the  glass 
was  termed  Horloge  de  Sable,  and  in  Dutch  ships 
Uur-glas,  not  half-hour  glass." 

I  give  a  few  other  extracts  from  this  interesting 
book : 

Page  49. 

Sets  up  the  bloody  flag  against  all  patience. 

Coriolanus :  II,  i,  68. 

"  In  Shakespeare's  day  and  long  afterwards  the 
'  bloody  flag,'  a  red  pennon,  was  the  battle  flag. 
There  was  practically  no  signalling  by 
flags  in  those  days,  and  many  signals  were  made  by 
striking  certain  sails.  Thus  Ralegh,  in  his  instruc- 
tions to  the  expedition  which  set  out  from  Plymouth 
in  1617,  writes :  '  If  you  discover  any  sail  at  sea 
.  .  .  if  she  be  a  great  ship  and  but  one,  you  shall 
strike  your  main  topsail  and  hoist  it  again  so  often 
as  you  judge  this  ship  to  be  hundred  tons  of 
burthen.'  " 

Page  52. 

The  master,  the  swabber,  the  boatswain,  and  I 
The  gunner  and  his  mate. 

The  Tempest:  II,  ii,  44. 
99 


SHAKSPERE  AND  SIR  WALTER  RALEGH 

To  these  four  officials  Mr.  Whall  devotes  several 
pages.  He  states  (page  56)  :  "  The  '  gunner  '  or, 
to  give  him  his  full  title, '  Master  gunner,'  was  an  im- 
portant personage ;  he  was  expected  to  be  acquainted 
with  every  known  sort  of  firearm  in  use  at  sea.  .  .  . 
In  Sir  Walter  Ralegh's  report  of  the  last  fight  of 
the  Refenge,  under  Grenville,  we  find  that  '  Syr 
Richard  .  .  .  commanded  the  Maister  gunner, 
whom  he  knew  to  be  a  resolute  man,  to  split  and  sink 
the  shippe.'  " 

Pages  63-4. 

In  every  cabin 
I  flam'd  amazement. 

The  Tempest:  I,  ii,  197. 

"  Cabins  were  contained  in  the  poop,  and  Ralegh 
calls  them  *  sluttish  '  places,  as  they  were  no  doubt 
in  days  when 

cabin'd^  cribb'd,  confined, 

had  a  real  reason." 

Pages  105-6.  He  again  applies  Ralegh's  term 
to  illustrate  three  lines  from  Venus  and  Adonis: 

Loathsome  cabin 
Moist  cabinet." 

Her  eyes  are  fled 
Into  the  deep  dark  cabins  of  her  head. 
Venus  and  Adonis,  11,  637,  854,  and  1036. 

"  The  cabins  of  a  mediaeval  ship  were  dark  and, 
as  Ralegh  terms  them,  '  sluttish.'  In  the  last  quo- 
tation a  modern  would  inevitably  use  caverns  J* 

These  illustrations  drawn  from  Ralegh  to  explain 
100 


"SHAKESPEARE"  AND  THE  SEA 

sea  terms  in  "  Shakespeare,"  are  the  more  valuable 
in  that  the  writer  unquestionably  has  no  suspicion 
of  the  Raleghian  authorship  of  the  Plays,  but,  if 
anything,  appears  to  lean  toward  the  Baconian 
theory. 

The  following  extracts — one  from  Mr.  Whall's 
book  and  the  other  from  Edwards's  Life  of  Ralegh — 
are  interesting. 

"  Into  this  time  of  exaltation  of  all  things  pertain- 
ing to  sea  service  Will  Shakspere  of  Stratford  came. 
Now  it  is  small  wonder  that  a  playwright  in  such 
times  should  make  use  of  sea  words,  but  the  wonder 
is  that  without  professional  acquaintance  he  should 
always  use  these  terms  correctly.  No  modern  writer 
is  able  to  do  this.  An  author  who  ventures  in  that 
direction  invariably  '  gives  himself  away  '  unless  he 
is  a  sailor  author :  this  the  writer  of  the  Plays  never 
does.  For,  be  it  noted,  he  essays  to  write  as  a  sailor, 
and  does  so  successfully.  The  mere  use  of  sea  ex- 
pressions which  have  come  into  the  language  is  a 
different  matter — Modern  English  is  full  of  such: 
for  example,  the  familiar  '  the  devil  to  pay ; '  but 
these  are  used  quite  apart  from  their  professional 
significance.  Shakespeare  does  quite  another  thing 
when  he  writes: 

This  punk  is  one  of  Cupid's  carriers: 

Clap  on  more  sails:  pursue:  up  with  your  fights: 

Give  fire :  she  is  my  prize,  or  ocean  whelm  them  all ! 

Merry  Wives:  II,  ii,  123. 

"  This  is  Elizabethan  sailor  talk  pure  and  simple. 
"  How  did  the  writer  obtain  sufficient  knowledge 
101 


SHAKSPERE  AND  SIR  WALTER  RALEGH 

of  the  sea  to  write  like  a  sailor?    That  is  a  question 
which  cannot  be  answered."     (Whall,  page  17.) 

"  Nor  is  it  at  this  moment — after  the  overhauling 
of  heaps  of  contemporary  papers — easy  to  conjec- 
ture what  were  the  exact  circumstances  of  Ralegh's 
first  self-planned  adventure  at  sea.  When  we  get 
fairly  upon  his  maritime  track,  we  do  not  follow 
the  novice,  but  the  master.  He  already  speaks  of 
naval  affairs  with  a  voice  of  authority.  Ralegh  not 
only  made  great  and  enduring  improvements  in 
ship-building,  and  wrought  changes  in  naval  tactics, 
but  he  is  the  first  man  of  any  nation  who  is  known 
to  have  set  his  pen  at  work  upon  a  complete,  prac- 
tical, and  systematic  treatise  of  naval  service  and 
naval  architecture,  ancient  and  modern.  In  1588 
he  led,  as  a  Rear-Admiral,  a  squadron  against  the 
'  Invincible  '  Armada  of  Spain ;  but  in  that  famous 
piece  of  service  he  carried  out  plans  other  than  his 
own.  In  1596  we  find  him  in  possession  of  such 
reputation  for  knowledge  of  sea  affairs  that  his 
advice  overrules  a  scheme  of  operation  drawn  by 
the  Lord  High  Admiral  of  England  sitting  in  Coun- 
cil with  other  veterans  of  the  navy.  Having  thus 
changed  the  plans  of  enterprise  and  the  order  of 
battle,  he  leads  in  person  the  van  of  the  English 
fleet  against  the  new  Armada  of  Spain,  and  the  for- 
tifications of  Cadiz.  It  was  to  Ralegh's  flagship  that 
the  only  two  '  great  galleons  '  which  were  brought 
into  an  English  port  struck  their  sails.  From  the 
ultimate  result  of  that  attack  on  Cadiz  the  vast 
power  of  Spain  never  quite  recovered  itself.  And 
it  was  Ralegh  who^ — in  the  teeth  of  Spain,  when 
at  her  prime — laid  the   foundation  of  the  British 

102 


"SHAKESPEARE"  AND  THE  SEA 

Colonies  in  North  America."      (Edwards,  Vol.   I, 
page  xxxvi. ) 

In  conclusion  it  is  to  be  noted  that  the  only 
Elizabethan  poet  whose  name,  even  at  an  early  date, 
was  associated  with  the  ocean  was  Sir  Walter 
Ralegh.  Edmund  Spenser  dedicated  his  Colin  Clout's 
Come  Home  Again  to  him,  and  in  that  poem,  refer- 
ring to  Ralegh's  visit  to  him  in  Ireland  in  1589, 
called  him  "  the  Shepheard  of  the  Ocean." 

Whom  when  I  asked  from  what  place  he  came. 
And  how  he  higlit,  himselfe  he  did  ycleepe, 

The  Shepheard  of  the  Ocean  by  name. 

And  said  he  came  far  from  the  main-sea  deepe. 

Again,  referring  to  Ralegh's  patronage, 

"   The  Shepheard  of  the  Ocean  (quoth  he) 
Unto  that  goddesse  grace  me  first  enhanced 

And  to  mine  oaten  pipe  enclin'd  her  eare. 
That  she  thenceforth  therein  gan  take  delight. 

And  it  desired  at  timely  houres  to  heare. 

And  still  again,  referring  to  Ralegh's  poems,  he 
wrote : 

And  there  that  Shepheard  of  the  Ocean  is. 

That  spends  his  wit  in  love's  consuming  smart : 

Full  sweetly  tempred  is  that  Muse  of  his 
That  can  empierce  a  Prince's  myhtie  hart. 

The  "  Prince,"  of  course,  is  Queen  Elizabeth. 

No  poet  of  those  days  had  so  deep  an  interest  in 
maritime  and  (as  we  shall  see  in  the  next  Chapter) 
transmarine  affairs  as  had  Ralegh.  Hence  the  innu- 
merable allusions,  similes,  and  metaphors  relating 
thereto  that  are  found  in  the  Dramas. 

103 


CHAPTER  XI 

"  Shakespeare  "  and  the  Beginning  of  English 
Colonial  Policy 

Under  the  above  title  Alfred  Zimmermann  has 
an  interesting  article  in  the  Deutsche  Rundschau 
(Vol.  CXVIII,  page  109).  He  points  out  the 
dominant  role  played  by  the  Elizabethans  in  estab- 
lishing the  policy  that  has  since  made  England  the 
mistress  of  the  seas  and  the  great  Colonial  power 
of  the  world;  and  demonstrates  the  powerful  in- 
fluence this  wonderful  movement  had  upon  the  mind 
and  writings  of  the  great  poet.  In  like  manner  he 
shows  that,  about  1583,  Leicester,  Ralegh's  early 
patron,  Sir  Humphrey  Gilbert,  Ralegh's  half- 
brother,  and  above  all  Ralegh  himself,  were  the 
leaders  in  promoting  the  colonization  schemes  that 
distinguished  that  era.  Zimmermann  observes  that 
in  not  less  than  eighteen  places  the  dramatist  refers 
to  the  Indies  or  the  Indians.  It  is  to  be  noted  that 
at  the  time  the  word  "  Indies  "  referred  not  only 
to  India  proper,  but  also  to  North,  Central,  and 
South  America.  The  author  gives  a  number  of 
quotations  from  the  Plays  and  cites  many  other 
works  in  illustration  of  his  point. 

It  is  hardly  necessary  to  observe  that  Zimmer- 
mann writes  from  the  Stratfordian  point  of  view 
regarding  the  authorship,  and  no  more  imagines 
that  he  is  unconsciously  furnishing  evidence  sup- 
porting the  Raleghian  point  of  view  than  did  Whall 
in  his  Shakespeare's  Sea  Terms  Explained. 

104 


ENGLISH  COLONIAL  POLICY 

It  may  be  stated  that  the  numerous  expeditions 
of  colonization  and  discovery  sent  out  by  Ralegh 
to  Virginia,  in  North  America,  and  to  Guiana  (now 
Venezuela),  in  South  America,  were  estimated  by 
him  to  have  cost  forty  thousand  pounds,  a  sum  equal 
to  at  least  one  million  dollars  in  the  currency  of 
our  times.  All  this  he  paid  out  of  his  private  purse. 
Several  of  his  allusions  to  Guiana  in  the  Plays  will 
be  more  conveniently  discussed  in  a  separate 
Chapter. 


105 


CHAPTER  XII 

"  Shakespeare  "  and  the  Indies — The  Meechant 
OF  Venice 

Thus  ornament  is  but  the  guiled  shore 

To  a  most  dangerous  sea ;  the  beauteous  scarf 

Veiling  an  Indian  beauty. 

Merchant  of  Venice:  HI,  ii,  97. 

The  commentators  have  had  a  hard  time  with 
this  passage.  Thej  are  puzzled  as  to  the  meaning 
of  "  the  guiled  shore,"  and  can  make  nothing  of  the 
"  most  dangerous  sea." 

"  Guiled,"  in  the  first  line,  is  the  reading  of  the 
Globe  edition.  It  is  probably  incorrect,  as  we  shall 
see. 

The  lines  occur  in  the  passage  in  which  Bassanio 
is  deliberating  as  to  which  of  the  three  caskets  he  will 
choose.  As  we  all  know,  he  selects  the  leaden  casket, 
basing  his  decision  on  the  fact  that  appearances  are 
often  deceitful.     He  begins  his  speech  (HI,  ii,  73)  : 

So  may  the  outward  shows  be  least  themselves : 
The  world  is  still  deceived  with  ornament. 

Then  after  some  twenty  lines,  in  which  he  cites 
several  proofs,  he  concludes : 

Thus  ornament  is  but  the  guiled  shore 
To  a  most  dangerous  sea ; 

which  is  quite  opposite  to  the  general  tenor  of  his 
thoughts,  unless  we  read  "  gilded." 

The  subject  is  somewhat  complicated  by  the  fact 
that  the  First  Folio  has  "  guiled,"  whereas  the  later 
Folios   have   "  guilded."      Warburton   thought   we 

106 


"SHAKESPEARE"  AND  THE  INDIES 

should  read  "  guilty  shore  " — which  is  a  propos  of 
nothing.  Others  are  divided  between  "  guiled  "  {i.e., 
fuU  of  guile,  treacherous)  and  "  gilded "  {i.e., 
golden).  One  of  the  critics  comes  near  the  truth 
about  the  origin  of  the  passage,  when  he  states :  "  I 
have  little  doubt  the  poet  was  thinking  of  Ralegh's 
Discovery  of  Guiana,  and  wrote  '  guilded.'  "  ^ 

In  February,  1595,  Sir  Walter  sailed  with  his 
fleet  of  several  vessels  on  his  voyage  of  discovery 
to  what  was  then  called  Guiana,  but  is  now  Venezuela. 
He  published  next  year  his  Discoverie  of  the  large, 
rich,  and  beautiful  Empire  of  Guiana,  with  a  relation 
of  the  great  and  golden  citie  of  Manoa.  His  pages 
glitter  with  the  accounts  of  the  gold  he  believed  to 
be  abundant  in  that  country.  So  deeply  was  this 
idea  fixed  in  his  mind  that  he  sent  out,  in  all,  at 
least  four  expeditions  thither,  at  an  enormous  ex- 
pense. He  visited  Guiana  a  second  time  in  his  old 
age,  in  1617.  He  held  so  firmly  to  the  belief  in  the 
immense  treasure  to  be  found  within  these  gilded 
shores  that  in  this  last  expedition  he  actually  staked 
his  very  life  on  the  result — and  lost  it.  As  we  pro- 
ceed, we  shall  find  repeated  evidences  in  the  Plays 
of  this  interest  in  America,  or  "  the  Indies." 

Let  us  further  consider  in  this  passage  the  refer- 
ence to  "  a  most  dangerous  sea."  "  What  has  this 
to  do  with  Bassanio's  monologue?"  is  the  question 
the  critics  virtually  ask.  We  find  the  explanation 
in  the  Discoverie  of  Guiana.  Ralegh  had  been 
warned  on  his  way  to  Guiana  that  his  efforts  would 

^  The  critic  is  Wm.  N.  Lettsom,  foot-note  to  Walker, 
Critical  Examination,  Vol.  I,  page  291,  quoted  by  Dr. 
Furness  in  the  Variorum  edition  of  The  Merchant  of  Venice, 
loc.  cit. 

107 


SHAKSPERE  AND  SIR  WALTER  RALEGH 

be  labor  lost,  and  that  his  company  would  suffer 
many  miseries.  All  this  he  found  to  be  true.  He 
writes  (Reprint  in  Hakluyt's  Principal  Navigations, 
Glasgow,  Vol.  X,  pages  380,  384): 

"  For  wee  had  as  much  sea  to'  crosse  over  in  our 
wheries  as  betweene  Dover  and  Calais,  and  in  a 
great  billow,  the  winde  and  current  being  both  very 
strong  .  .  .  and  if  God  had  not  sent  us  another 
helpe  we  might  have  wandered  a  whole  yere  in  that 
labyrinthe  of  waters,  ere  wee  found  any  way,  either 
out  or  in,  .  .  .  [wee  were]  enforced  either  by 
main  strength  to  row  against  the  violent  current  or 
to  return  as  Avise  as  we  went  out." 

The  account  of  the  difficulties  they  struggled  with 
in  these  unknown  waters  goes  on  for  pages.  The 
return  trip  was  equally  hazardous  (page  421): 
"  And  to  be  short,  when  wee  were  arrived  at  the 
seaside  then  grew  our  greatest  doubt,  and  the  bitter- 
est of  all  our  journey  passed;  for  I  protest  before 
God  that  wee  were  in  a  most  desperate  estate.  For 
the  same  night  which  wee  ankorcd  in  the  mouth  of  the 
river  Capuri,  where  it  falleth  into  the  sea,  there 
arose  a  mightie  storme,  and  the  river's  mouth  was  at 
least  a  league  broad,  so  as  wee  ranne  before  night 
close  under  the  land  with  our  small  boates,  and 
brought  the  Galley  as  neare  as  wee  could,  but  she  had 
as  much  adoe  to  live  as  could  be,  and  there  wanted 
little  of  her  sinking,  and  all  those  in  her. 
And  so  being  all  very  sober  and  melancholy,  one 
faintly  chearing  another  to  show  courage,  it  pleased 
God  that  the  next  day  about  nine  of  the  clocke,  we 
descried  the  Island  of  Trinidado;  and  stearing  for 
the  nearest  part  of  it,  wee  kept  the  shore  till  we 

108 


"SHAKESPEARE"  AND  THE  INDIES 

came  to  Curiapan,  where  wee  founde  our  shippes  at 
ankor,  than  which  there  was  never  to  us  a  more 
joyfull  sight." 

So  much  for  the  "  most  dangerous  sea."  But 
what  of 

the  beauteous  scarf 

Veiling  an  Indian  beauty  ? 

This  indeed  is  what  Mr.  Sw^iveller  would  have 
called  a  staggerer.  The  Globe  editors  mark  these 
words  with  an  obelus  ( f ) ,  to  indicate  that  "  no 
admissable  emendation  has  been  proposed." 

What  beauty.?  What  fair  one,  whether  in  East 
or  West  Indies,  in  ancient  or  modern  times,  in  his- 
tory, mythology,  or  where  you  please,  is  here 
referred  to? 

The  proper  method  of  attacking  a  problem  of  this 
kind  is  to  assume  that  the  original  text  is  at  fault, 
and  then  proceed  to  amend  it  according  to  one's 
taste  and  fancy.  Therefore  the  commentators  pro- 
pose that  instead  of  "  Indian  beauty"  we  should  read 
"  Indian  dowdy,"  or  "  Indian  idol,"  or  "  Indian 
gypsy,"  or  "  sooty,"  or  "  deity,"  or  "  bosom,"  or 
"  mummy." 

The  true  interpretation  is  found  in  Sir  Walter's 
Discoverie.  Referring  to  the  native  women  of 
Guiana,  he  states  (page  391)  that  some  of  them 
were  "  very  yong  and  excellently  favoured  {^i.e., 
beautiful],  which  came  among  us  without  deceit, 
starke  naked."  He  gave  presents  to  them,  "  to  every 
one  something  or  other,  which  was  rare  and  strange 
to  themi  .  .  .  such  things  as  they  desired." 
Although  no  mention  is  made  of  the  nature  of  the 
presents  given  the  fair  Indians,  it  is  not  improbable 

109 


SHAKSPERE  AND  SIR  WALTER  RALEGH 

that,  perceiving  that  their  beauty  was  unadorned, 
and  knowing  well  the  feminine  fondness  for  finery 
the  world  over,  he  may  have  given  one  of  the  scarfs 
worn  by  Elizabethan  courtiers — in  fact,  frequently 
v/orn  by  Ralegh  himself,  as  shown  in  his  portrait 
given  in  Edwards's  Life.^  The  wearing  of  such  an 
ornamental  piece  of  work  by  a  "  base  Indian  "  would 
be  quite  in  consonance  with  the  tenor  of  Bassanio's 
argument. 

We  may  safely  take  it,  therefore,  that  the  First 
Folio  is  wrong  in  its  "  guiled  "  shore,  and  may  cor- 
rect it  to  "  gilded,"  as  demonstrated  by  this  topical 
allusion.  In  like  manner  the  "  most  dangerous  sea  " 
is  but  a  recollection  of  "  the  most  desperate  estate  " 
of  himself  and  crew  in  the  Guiana  waters.  Nor  is  it 
necessary  that  we  should  take  refuge  in  "  Indian 
dowdy  "  or  "  Indian  mummy,"  in  order  to  under- 
stand the  allusion.  The  whole  passage  is  explained 
by  the  personal  experiences  of  the  man  who  wrote 
The  Merchant  of  Venice.  He  returned  to  England 
in  the  autumn  of  1596.  It  may  have  been  written 
even  in  1595,  aboard  his  sailing  vessel  on  the  way 
home.  Aubrey  reports  that  Ralegh  was  accus- 
tomed to  carry  with  him  a  trunk  full  of  books  when 
on  his  journeys  by  sea.^  It  is  not  likely  that  so 
active  an  intellect  would  have  been  satisfied  with  a 
do-nothing  existence  during  the  protracted  voyages 
of  the  slow-sailing  ships  of  those  days, 

*  The  portrait,  which  is  the  frontispiece  of  Vol.  I,  is  an 
engraving  by  Jeens  after  the  original  (probably  painted 
by  Francesco  Zucchero)  in  the  collection  of  the  Marquess 
of  Bath,  at  Longleat. 

*  John  Aubrey,  Ibid.,  loc.  cit. ;  "  He  studyed  most  in  his 
sea-voyages,  when  he  carried  always  a  trunke  of  bookes  along 
with  him,  and  had  nothing  to  divert  him." 

110 


SIR    WALTER   RALEGH 


CHAPTER  XIII 

"  Shakespeare  "  and  the  Indies  (Continued) 

THE  MERRY  WIVES  OF  WINDSOR 

"  Falstaff.  Here's  another  letter  to  her :  she  bears 
the  purse  too;  she  is  a  region  in  Guiana,  all  gold  and 
bounty.  I  will  be  cheater  to  them  both,  and  they  shall 
be  exchequers  to  me;  they  shall  be  my  East  and  West 
Indies,  and  I  will  trade  to  them  both.     .     . 

Hold,  sirrah,  bear  you  these  letters  tightly: 
Sail  like  ray  pinnace  to  these  golden  shores. 

Merry  Wives:  I,  iii,  75-89. 

The  "  golden  shores  "  of  the  last  line  confirm  the 
"  gilded  shore  "  of  the  preceding  Chapter ;  and  as 
this  reference  is  to  Guiana,  we  have  additional 
reason  for  believing  that  Guiana  is  also  referred  to 
in  The  Merchant  of  Venice. 

all's  well  that  ends  well 

Thus,  Indian-like, 
Religious  in  mine  error,  I  adore 
The  sun,  that  looks  upon  his  worshipper. 
But  knows  of  him  no  more. 

AlVs  Well:  I,  iii,  210. 

This  passage  is  a  part  of  the  confession  of  hope- 
less love  for  Bertram  that  Helena  makes  to  his 
m.other.  The  simile  is  drawn  from  Sir  Walter's 
observation  of  the  customs  of  the  Guiana  Indians. 

In  the  same  Discoverie  of  Guiana  he  writes  (page 
422): 

**  Now  that  it  hath  pleased  God  to  send  us  safe  to 
our  shippes,  it  is  time  to  leave  Guiana  to  the  Sv/nne, 

111 


SHAKSPERE  AND  SIR  WALTER  RALEGH 

•whom  they  worshippe,  and  steare  away  toward  the 
North." 

Again,  referring  to  the  religion  of  some  of  the 
native  Indians,  he  writes  (page  424)  : 

"  How  they  beleeve  the  immortahtie  of  the  soul, 
worshippe  the  Sunne,"  etc.,  etc. 

love's  labor's  lost 
— Who  sees  the  heavenly  Rosaline, 
That,  like  a  rude  and  savage  man  of  Inde, 
At  the  first  opening  of  the  gorgeous  east, 
Bows  not  his  vassal  head;  and,  strucken  blind. 
Kisses  the  base  ground  with  obedient  breast.^ 

L.  L.  L.:  IV,  iii,  221. 

Another  allusion  to  the  sun-worshippers.  The 
passage  has  a  further  interest  in  that  it  bears  on  the 
structure  and  date  of  composition  of  the  comedy. 

Lovers  Labor's  Lost  was  printed  in  quarto  in 
1596,  with  the  statement  on  the  title-page  that  it 
had  been  "  Newly  corrected  and  augmented."  A 
prior  version,  therefore,  existed,  which  has,  with 
good  reason,  been  placed  at  about  1590.  This  early 
version  is  not  extant. 

We  therefore  have  these  three  dates: 

Early  version  of  the  Play,  about  1590. 

Ralegh's  expedition  to  Guiana,  1595. 

Augmented  edition  of  the  Play,  1598. 

Evidently  the  allusion  to  the  sun-worshippers 
was  made  after  1595,  and  is  one  of  the  augmen- 
tations. 

Confirming  this,  I  quote  from  Furness's  Variorum 
edition  of  the  Play  (page  184): 

112 


"SHAKESPEARE"  AND  THE  INDIES 

"  Who  sees  the  heavenly  Rosaline :  "  Spedding 
believes  that  from  this  line  to  the  close  of  the  Act 
(some  170  lines)  we  have  one  of  the  augmentations 
(the  italics  are  mine)  mentioned  on  the  title-page  of 
the  Qto. 

Further  proof  to  this  effect  is  found  in  the  fact 
that  in  the  170  Hues  mentioned  there  are  two  repe- 
titions or  duplicate  passages.  Each  of  these  repe- 
titions expresses  the  same  idea.  That  is  to  say,  the 
poet  rewrote  the  early  passages,  but  neglected  to 
strike  out  the  first  version. ^^  The  allusion  to  the 
sun-worshippers  constitutes  a  part  of  the  170  lines. 
The  allusion  was  therefore  not  in  the  1590  version, 
but  was  inserted  in  the  1598  edition  after  Ralegh 
had  seen  these  "  rude  and  savage  men  of  Inde  " 
worshipping  the  sun  in  Guiana  in  1595. 

The  allusion  adds  weight,  therefore,  to  Sped- 
ding's  belief. 

OTHEL.LO 

Wherein  of  antres  vast^  and  deserts  idle. 

Rough    quarries,   rocks,    and    hills    whose    heads   touch 

heaven. 
It  was  my  hint  to  speak, — such  was  the  process; 
And  of  the  Cannibals  that  each  other  eat, 
The  Anthropophagi,  and  men  whose  heads 
Do  grow  beneath  their  shoulders. 

Othello:  I,  iii,  140. 

In  his  Discoverie  of  Guiana  Sir  Walter  alludes 
to  the  five  items  I  have  italicized  in  the  above  lines : 
deserts,  rough  quarries,  hight  hills,  Cannibals,  and 
men  whose  heads  grow  beneath  their  shoulders. 

^"  Cf.  Dr.  Furness,  Variorum  edition  of  Loire's  Labor's 
Lost,  page  193.  Lines  314-19  are  repeated  in  lines  337-342; 
lines  330-32  are  repeated  in  lines  369-71. 

8  113 


SHAKSPERE  AND  SIR  WALTER  RALEGH 

Dr.  Furness  in  his  edition  of  the  Play  remarks 
(page  57):  "Within  a  few  pages  of  the  account 
of  the  Anthropophagi  in  Sir  Walter's  Discoverie 
mention  is  made  (page  404)  of  a  very  high  hill, 
and  of  digging  out  crystals  with  daggers  and 
fingers — rough  quarrying  certainly." 

As  to  the  deserts,  the  Elizabethans  understood 
the  word  as  meaning  not  only  a  barren  sandy  tract 
but  also  a  wild  uninhabited  region,  including  forest 
land.  The  word  is  thus  used  in  As  You  Like  It 
(II,  vii,  109): 

Orlando.  But  whate'er  you  are. 

That  in  this  desert  inaccessible, 
Under  the  shade  of  melancholy  boughs,  etc.,  etc. 

It  is  not  in  the  least  straining  the  meaning  of  the 
word,  if  we  accept  Othello's  "  deserts  idle  "  in  this 
sense.  Of  course  in  Ralegh's  trip  up  the  Orinoco  he 
was  for  weeks  surrounded  by  tropical,  impenetrable 
"  deserts  " — often  to  the  disadvantage  of  himself 
and  his  party. 

The  Cannibals  he  mentions  at  least  ten  times  in 
his  account. 

Concerning  the  men  whose  heads  grow  beneath 
their  shoulders,  he  tells  us  (page  406)  that  in  an 
adjoining  country  "  are  a  nation  of  people  whose 
heads  appeare  not  above  their  shoulders ;  which, 
though  it  may  be  thought  a  meere  fable,  yet  for  mine 
owne  part  I  am  resolved  it  is  true,  because  every 
childe  in  the  provinces  of  Arromaia  and  Canuri 
affirme  the  same;  they  are  called  Ewaipanoma:  they 
are  reported  to'  have  their  eyes  in  their  shoulders 

114 


"SHAKESPEARE"  AND  THE  INDIES 

and  their  mouthes  in  the  middle  of  their  breasts. 
Such  a  nation  was  written  of  by  Mande- 
vile  .  .  .  for  mine  owne  part  I  saw  them  not, 
but  I  am  resolved  that  so  many  people  did  not  all 
combine,  or  forethinke  to  make  the  report." 

In  The  Tempest  (HI,  iii,  46)  the  headless  men  are 
again  alluded  to. 

Of  course,  in  Othello's  account  of  his  wooing  of 
Desdemona,  no  mention  is  made  of  Guiana.  But 
if  the  Moor's  life-story,  this  strange  jumble  of  events 
and  sights  given  in  the  above  lines,  be  not  taken 
from  the  poet's  personal  experience  in  that  country, 
then,  I  submit,  we  have  the  most  astounding  series 
of  coincidences  on  record. 

I  am  of  the  opinion  that  the  first  part  of  this 
passage  (not  quoted  above),  in  which  Othello'  refers 
to  the  events  of  his  younger  days,  is,  in  like  manner, 
an  account  of  Ralegh's  experiences  in  his  youth. 
The  history  of  Ralegh's  younger  days  is  not 
recorded. 

AS  you   LIKE  IT 

Rosalind.  One  inch  of  delay  more  is  a  South-sea  of 
discovery ;  I  prithee,  tell  me  who  is  it  quickly,  and  speak 
apace. — As  You  Like  It:  III,  ii,  206. 

This  is  a  part  of  Rosalind's  reply  to  Celia,  who  has 
been  teasing  her  and  has  refused  to  tell  her  the  name 
of  the  lover  who  has  placed  verses  on  the  trees  in  the 
forest  of  Arden.  The  injection  of  this  colonizing 
term  into  this  pastoral  scene  is  another  instance  of 
the  extent  to  which  the  poet's  mind  was  imbued  with 
the  subject. 

115 


SHAKSPERE  AND  SIR  WALTER  RALEGH 

Sir  Walter  had  probably  in  mind  here  the  expedi- 
tion sent  out  by  his  friend,  the  Earl  of  Cumberland, 
in  which  he  himself  had  an  interest.  Ralegh's  biog- 
rapher, Oldys,  relates  (Life,  page  72): 

"  Not  long  after  this,  there  was  another  voyage 
set  out,  the  same  year,  by  the  Earl  of  Cumberland 
to  the  South-Sea;  but  performed  no  further  than  the 
latitude  of  forty-four  Degrees  to  the  South  of  the 
Equinoctial,  in  which  as  Sir  Walter  Ralegh  was  also 
an  Adventurer,  his  fine  Pinnace  named  Dorothy  be- 
ing engaged  therein,  and  some  small  Prizes  also 
being  taken,  he  had,  no  Doubt,  his  proportion  in  the 
Profits  that  arose  from  them."  ^^ 

This  expedition  sailed  from  England  in  August, 

1586,  and  did  not  return   home   until   September, 

1587.  The  voyage  lasted  therefore  more  than  a 
year — double  the  time  required  for  Ralegh  to  make 
his  Guiana  voyage,  including  the  long  and  difficult 
trip  up  the  Orinoco.  Naturally,  this  delay — this 
protracted  delay — must  have  caused  him  much  con- 
cern for  the  safety  of  his  friend,  the  Earl,  as  well 
as  for  his  own  vessel  and  crew. 

Hence  the  association  in  his  mind  of  "  delay  " 
with  a  "  South-sea  of  discovery "  in  the  above 
passage. 

It  will  be  observed  that  Oldys  refers  to  Ralegh's 

"  Cf.  Hakluyt,  Principal  Navigations,  Glasgow,  1904,  Vol. 
XI,  page  302ff.:  "The  voyage  set  out  by  the  right  honour- 
able the  Earle  of  Cumberland,  in  the  yere  1586,  intended  for 
The  South  sea,  but  performed  no  farther  than  the  latitude 
of  44  degrees  to  the  South  of  the  Equinoctial,  Written  by 
M.  John  Sarracoll  marchant  in  the  same  voyage."  The 
South  Sea  is  the  Pacific  Ocean  west  of  South  America.  The 
designation   appears   in  the  maps  of  the  period. 

116 


"SHAKESPEARE"  AND  THE  INDIES 

"  fine  Pinnace "  which  sailed  to  these  southern 
waters:  in  the  quotation  at  the  beginning  of  this 
Chapter  we  read: 

Sail  like  my  pinnace  to  these  golden  shores. 

Merry  Wives:  \,  in,  89. 

AS  YOU  LIKE  IT 

Rosalind.  O  coz,  coz^  coz,  my  pretty  little  coz, 
that  thou  didst  know  how  many  fathom  deep  I  am  in 
love !  But  it  cannot  be  sounded :  my  affection  hath  an 
unknown  bottom,  like  the  hay  of  Portugal. 

It  is  not  impossible  that  the  ultra-conservative 
reader  may  observe  "  What  is  here  presented  may 
be  all  very  well ;  but  is  it  not  likely  that  William 
Shakspere  read  Ralegh's  Discoverie,  and  used  this 
material  as  a  basis  for  the  allusions  in  his  Dramas?  " 
To  which  I  can  only  reply,  with  all  respect,  like  Mr. 
Snodgrass :  "  What  makes  him  go  sideways  ?  " 

Seriously,  we  have  an  answer  in  the  above  allusion 
to  "  the  bay  of  Portugal."  The  water  off  the  coast 
of  Portugal  is  so  deep  that  to  the  Elizabethans  it 
was  practically  unfathomable.  This  explains  the 
appropriateness  of  Rosalind's  simile.  But  this  is 
not  the  point  at  issue.  I  quote  from  Furness's 
As  You  Like  It,  page  225,  where  he  gives  a  note  on 
the  above  line  by  W.  A.  Wright,  the  editor  of  the 
Clarendon  Press  edition  of  the  Plays :  "  In  a  letter 
to  the  Lord  treasurer  and  Lord  High  Admiral, 
Ralegh  gives  an  account  of  the  capture  of  a  ship  of 
Bayonne  by  his  man  Captain  Floyer  in  '  the  bay 
of  Portugal.'  (Edwards,  Life  of  Ralegh,  Vol.  II, 
page  56. )    This  is  the  only  instance  in  which  I  have 

117 


SHAKSPERE  AND  SIR  WALTER  RALEGH 

met  the  phrase,  which  is  not  recognized,  so  far  as  I 
am  aware,  in  maps  and  treatises  on  geography." 

The  letter  in  question  is  dated  1592.  The  term 
"  Bay  of  Portugal  "  is  used  by  Ralegh  in  it.  It 
is  not  used  again,  so  far  as  is  known,  until  some 
seven  years  later,  when  "  Shakespeare  "  put  it  in  the 
mouth  of  Rosalind:  nor,  according  to  Wright,  is  it 
to  be  found  in  maps  and  works  on  geography. 

Sir  Walter  twice  sailed  through  "  the  Bay  of 
Portugal:"  viz.,  on  his  way  to  and  return  from 
Cadiz,  in  the  campaign  of  1596. 

But,  possibly,  our  very  conservative  friend  may 
think  that  Shakspere  obtained  Ralegh's  letter  from 
the  Lord  Treasurer  or  the  Lord  High  Admiral  of 
England  ? 


118 


CHAPTER  XIV 

"  Shakespeare  "  and  the  Indies  (Continued) 

TWELFTH    NIGHT 

Maria  ...  he  does  smile  his  face  into  more 
lines  than  are  in  the  new  map  with  the  augmentation  of 
the  Indies.— Twelfth  Night:  III,  ii,  83. 

"  The  new  map  with  the  augmentation  of  the 
Indies  "  was  drawn  in  1599  and  accompanied  the 
second  edition  of  Hakluyt's  celebrated  Principal 
Navigations,  etc.,  the  third  and  final  volume  of  which 
was  dedicated  to  Cecil  in  a  letter  dated  September 
1st,  1600.  The  map  is  covered  with  the  rhumb-lines 
extended  from  the  thirty-two  points  of  sixteen  com- 
passes stamped  on  its  face.  These  lines  are  re- 
ferred to  in  the  above  extract. 

Twelfth  Night  was  written  in  1599 — the  year  the 
map  was  produced.  This  is  shown  by  two  allusions 
to  the  Play  in  Ben  Jonson's  Every  Man  Out  of  His 
Humour,  of  the  same  year.  In  one  of  these  allu- 
sions Jonson  refers  to  the  plot  of  Twelfth  Night. 
His  reference  to  the  plot  is  not  in  all  respects  cor- 
rect ;  but  he  does  not  pretend  to  speak  by  the  card, 
as  shown  by  his  words,  "  Some  such  cross-wooing  " 
(III,  i,  610).  But  all  doubt  is  removed  by  his  sec- 
ond reference,  which  hitherto  has  not  been  noticed 
by  the  critics.     He  parodies  the  Play  thus : 

119 


SHAKSPERE  AND  SIR  WALTER  RALEGH 

"  SHAKESPEAEE,"  TWELFTH  NIGHT  :  H,  IV,  27 

Duke.     What  kind  of  woman  is't  ? 

Viola.      Of  your  coiii'plexion. 

Duke.  She  is  not  worth  thee,  then.  What  years,  i' 
faith? 

Viola.     About  your  years,  my  Lord. 

Puntarvolo.  Of  what  years  is  the  knight,  fair  dam- 
seU 

Gentlewoman.     Faith,  much  about  your  years,  sir. 

Puntarvolo.  What  complexion  or  what  stature  bears 
he? 

Gentlewoman.  Of  j'^our  stature  and  very  near  your 
complexion. 

In  passing,  I  may  observe  that  it  is  not  impossible 
that  in  Puntarvolo  Jonson  may  have  caricatured 
Sir  Walter  Ralegh,  bringing  him  on  the  stage  in 
the  person  of  this  absurd  knight. 

Therefore  Twelfth  Night  was  written  in  1599 
and  referred  to  the  map  of  1599.  The  author  of 
Txvelfth  Night  must  have  studied  the  map  before 
the  publication  of  Hakluyt's  Navigations  made  the 
general  public  familiar  with  it.  While  the  map 
no  doubt  appeared  separately,  for  the  convenience 
of  subscribers  to  the  first  edition  of  1589,  this  very 
early  reference  points  to  the  anticipatory  knowledge 
of  a  patron  and  collaborator. 

It  is  generally  thought  that  the  words  "  the  aug- 
mentation of  the  Indies  "  refer  to  the  East  Indies. 
This  I  believe  to  be  erroneous.  I  think  they  refer 
to  the  West  Indies:  i.e.,  to  the  Western  Hemisphere 
as  the  field  covered.  The  map  itself  shows  "  Mt. 
Raghley  "  in  what  is  now  British  America,  "  Vir- 

120 


"SHAKESPEARE"  AND  THE  INDIES 

ginia "  in  what  is  now  the  United  States,  and 
"  Guiana  "  in  South  America. ^^ 

In  Linschoten's  maps  of  1596,  and  Barentz's  map 
of  1599,  these  names  do  not  appear,  the  territories 
in  question,  for  the  most  part,  not  being  included. 

Therefore  the  new  map  was  augmented  by  the 
Indies,  and  augmented,  inter  alia,  by  the  very  colo- 
nies upon  the  discovery  or  settlement  of  which  Sir 
Walter  had  spent  a  fortune. 

A  second  reason  why  we  should  expect  Ralegh  to 
have  been  interested  in  the  Navigations  is  that  it 
contains  a  dedication  to  him  by  Hakluyt  of  the 
latter's  translation  of  a  French  description  of 
Florida  (Vol.  VHI,  page  439);  a  Report  to  Sir 
Walter  by  Lawrence  Keymis  of  the  second  expedi- 
tion sent  by  Ralegh  to  Guiana  (Vol.  X,  page  441) ; 
a  Report  by  Thomas  Masham  of  still  a  third  expedi- 
tion to  the  same  place  sent  also  by  him  (Vol.  XI, 
page  1 )  ;  a  reprint  of  Ralegh's  Report  of  the  Truth 
of  the  Fight  about  the  Isles  of  the  Azores  (Vol.  VII, 
page  38)  ;  the  Discoverie  of  Guiana  (Vol.  X,  page 
838)  ;  and  accounts  of  other  expeditions  to  America 
sent  out  and  financed  at  his  expense. 

"■  The  "  new  map,"  made  by  Emmerie  Mollineux  of 
Lambeth  for  the  new  edition  of  Hakluyt's  Principal  Navi- 
gations, can  be  compared  conveniently  with  the  old  map 
(Typus  Orbis  Terrarum,  made  by  Ortelius  in  1570),  which 
had  illustrated  the  first  edition,  by  means  of  the  Glasgow 
Reprint,  in  the  first  Volume  of  which  fac-similes  of  both  maps 
are  included.  The  augmentations  are  much  less  apparent  in 
the  Eastern  than  in  the  Western  Hemisphere.  The  very 
name  of  Japan  has  been  omitted,  while  Guiana  and  Virginia 
are  printed  in  capital  letters.  Cf.  Dr.  Furness's  Variorum 
edition  of  Twelfth  Night,  page  209,  where,  however,  the 
opposite   view   is   presented. 

121 


SHAKSPERE  AND  SIR  WALTER  RALEGH 

Still  a  third  reason  for  his  interest  in  the  work 
is  that  Hakluyt  was  a  "  Servant,"  or,  at  least,  a 
protege  of  Sir  Walter.  As  early  as  1584  he  drew 
up  "  A  particular  discourse  concerning  Western 
discoveries  written  in  the  yere  1584,  by  Richarde 
Hakluyt  of  Oxforde,  at  the  requeste  and  direction  of 
the  righte  worshipfull  Mr.  Walter  Rayly  before  the 
comynge  home  of  his  twoo  barkes."  ^^ 

So  that  fifteen  years  before  the  date  of  Twelfth 
Night  we  find  Hakluyt  writing  his  first  work  "  at 
the  requeste  and  direction  "  of  the  great  colonizer. 

It  is  to  be  borne  in  mind  that  Sir  Walter  was  what 
Boswell  would  have  called  "  the  big  man  "  among  the 
discoverers  and  writers  on  those  subjects  in  that 
day.  His  powerful  position  at  Court,  his  wealth, 
and  his  immense  activity  in  colonizing  expeditions 
caused  all  of  these  men  to  look  up  to  him  as  their 
patron  and  leader. 

There  cannot  be  the  slightest  doubt,  therefore, 
that  this  Magnum  Opus  of  Hakluyt  was  a  work  of 
the  deepest  interest  to  Ralegh,  containing,  as  it  did, 
so  many  accounts  of  his  own  expeditions.  He  may 
even  have  supervised  the  preparation  of  the  map 
itself;  for  on  it,  for  the  first  time  on  any  map,  ap- 
peared the  "  Guiana  "  and  "  Trinidado  "  of  his 
expedition  of  a  few  years  before. 

Hence  "  the  augmentation  of  the  Indies."  Hence 
also  the  early  allusion  in  the  Drama  to  a  map  that 
was  barely,  if  at  all,  known  to  the  public,  but  was 
certainly  known  to  him. 

"  Reprinted  in  Collections  of  the  Maine  Historical  Society, 
9nd  Series,  Vol.  II,  Cambridge,  U.  S.  A.,  1877. 

122 


CHAPTER  XV 

"  Shakespeare  "  and  the  Indies  (Concluded) 

THE   TEMPEST 

Caliban.     No  more  dams  I'll  make  for  fish. 

The  Tempest:  II,  ii,  164. 

Here  we  have  an  allusion  connected  not  with 
Guiana  but  with  Ralegh's  Virginia  enterprises. 

Mr.  Sidney  Lee  has  an  article  in  Scribner^s 
Monthly  (September,  1907,  Vol.  XLII,  page  313), 
entitled  The  Call  of  the  West.  Mr.  Lee,  like  Zim- 
mermann  {ante.  Chapter  XI),  reviews  many  of  the 
allusions  to  the  Indies.  He  remarks :  "  Shakespeare 
alone  of  contemporary  dramatists  seems  to  have  real- 
ized the  serious  significance  of  the  native  problem 
which  America  offered  thinking  men."  Referring 
to  Caliban's  words  quoted  above  he  writes : 

"  This  line  from  the  play  has  not  hitherto  re- 
ceived comment  from  any  of  the  thousand  and  one 
editors  of  The  Tempest,  and  it  may  be  questioned 
whether  any  student  has  yet  appreciated  its  signifi- 
cance. ...  In  their  wide  rivers  the  Virginians 
were  wont  to  construct  dams  and  weirs,  which  were 
contrived  with  singular  ingenuity.  It  was  on  the 
fish  which  was  thus  procured  by  the  Virginian 
natives  that  the  first  English  settlers  mainly  de- 
pended for  their  sustenance.  The  reports  of 
Ralegh's  early  agents  in  Virginia  are  at  one  with  the 
later  founders  at  Jamestown  in  their  expressions  of 
amazement  at  the  mechanical  skill  which  the  natives 
brought   to   the   construction    of   their    fish   dams 

123 


SHAKSPERE  AND  SIR  WALTER  RALEGH 

whereby  they  secured  an  uninterrupted  supply  of 
fresh  fish.  .  .  .  When  Ralegh's  first  Governor 
of  Virginia,  Ralph  Lane,  detected,  in  1586,  signs 
of  hostility  among  the  natives  about  his  camp,  his 
thoughts  at  once  turned  to  their  weirs. 
Caliban's  threat  to  '  make  no  more  dams  for  fish  ' 
consequently  exposed  Prospero  to  a  very  real  and 
familiar  peril." 

Sidney  Lee  has  much  more  to  say  regarding 
Ralegh's  experiences  with  the  Guiana  Indians,  as 
well  as  of  his  taking  into  domestic  service  two  of 
them,  while  a  prisoner  in  the  Tower  of  London.  The 
thought  suggests  itself  that  it  may  have  been  from 
these  Guiana  servants  that  he  drew  the  character 
of  Caliban ;  but  as  details  are  lacking  I  do  not  press 
the  point. 

Mr.  Lee's  statement  that  the  Stratfordian  alone 
of  contemporary  dramatists  realized  the  significance 
of  the  American  problem  is,  of  course,  based  solely 
on  the  testimony  furnished  by  the  Dramas.  It  is 
not  based  on  any  knowledge  we  have  of  the  actor 
himself.  There  is  not  the  slightest  evidence  given 
in  Mr.  Lee's  elaborate  biography  of  the  man,  to 
show  that  he  cared  any  more  about  American  affairs 
than  he  did  about  the  Pyramids  of  Egypt.  On  the 
other  hand,  Ralegh,  to  whom  his  agents  in  his  own 
Virginia  reported  concerning  these  fish  dams,  was 
well  aware  of  their  importance.  It  is  a  material  fact 
no  other  poet  would  have  been  Hkely  to  allude  to. 


Charles  Kingsley  in  his  Sir  Walter  Ralegh  and 
his  Times  expresses  the  opinion  that  "  to  this  one 

124 


"SHAKESPEARE"  AND  THE  INDIES 

man,  under  the  providence  of  Almighty  God,  do  the 
whole  United  States  of  America  owe  their  existence." 
It  might  be  more  correct,  perhaps,  to  say,  that  to 
Ralegh  the  United  States  owes  its  existence  as  an 
Anglo-Saxon  nation  rather  than  a  Latin  nation. 

By  1550  Spain  had  established  colonies  in  the 
West  Indies,  Mexico,  Central  America,  and  South 
America.  It  was  the  vast  wealth  in  gold,  silver,  and 
other  products  obtained  therefrom  that  made  her  the 
leading  power  of  Europe. 

Fully  recognizing  this  central  fact,  Ralegh  sent 
out  his  privateering  expeditions  against  Spanish 
merchantmen,  led  the  English  troops  in  their  attacks 
upon  Spanish  towns  and  Spanish  fleets,  and,  above 
all,  through  his  agents  was  the  leading  and  most 
prominent  Englishman  to  raise  the  flag  and  intro- 
duce the  religion  of  England  into  the  New  World. 
Had  his  gift  of  an  Empire  in  Guiana  been  accepted 
by  Queen  Elizabeth,  it  is  probable  that  through  this 
entering  wedge  an  Anglo-Saxon  nation  would  have 
been  established  in  South  America. 

From  1584,  when  he  despatched  his  first  expe- 
dition to  Virginia,  to  1618,  when  he  sailed  on  his 
last  voyage  to  Guiana,  the  eff*orts  of  this  many-sided 
man  were  devoted  to  the  furtherance  of  the  great 
colonial  schemes  the  realization  of  which  has  made 
England  what  she  is.  Every  subject  connected 
therewith,  every  work  on  foreign  travel  or  discovery, 
was  to  him  a  source  of  the  most  absorbing  interest. 
"  There  was,"  says  Lloyd,  "  not  an  expert  soldier 
or  seaman  but  he  consulted,  not  a  printed  or  manu- 
script discourse  of  navigation  or  war  but  he 
perused." 

125 


SHAKSPERE  AND  SIR  WALTER  RALEGH 

Hence  it  is  that  whether  the  Dramas  of  this 
colonizer,  mariner,  and  Poet  of  the  Ocean  be  based 
on  a  play  of  Plautus,  a  novel  of  Cintliio,  a  narrative 
of  Gower,  or  a  tale  of  Lodge  or  Greene,  we  ever  find 
therein  the  most  remarkable  familiarity  with  the 
many-sounding  sea,  technical  knowledge  of  sea  craft, 
and  allusions  to  people,  customs,  and  products  of 
strands  remote. 

As  Zimmermann,  referring  to  "  Shakespeare," 
observes :  "  The  poet  has  with  the  eye  of  genius  fore- 
seen the  immense  consequence  of  the  then  modest 
Enghsh  colonies  established  in  America."  And  as 
Edwards,  referring  to  Ralegh,  states  {Life,  Intro- 
duction, Vol.  I,  page  XXXVII) :  "  The  future  des- 
tinies of  America,  as  well  as  the  profits  of  a  new 
trade,  were  with  him  themes  of  thought,  of  conver- 
sation, and  of  active  effort.  .  .  .  He  was  des- 
tined only  barely  to  realize — even  in  the  narrowest 
and  most  potential  sense  of  the  word — his  own  antici- 
pation, uttered  at  a  time  which  otherwise  was  to  him 
one  of  deep  dejection,  when  he  said  of  Virginia:  '  I 
shall  yet  live  to  see  it  an  English  Nation.'  '* 


126 


CHAPTER  XVI 

"  Shakespeare  "  and  the  Due  de  Biron 

King.  Two  months  since. 

Here  was  a  gentle  man  of  Normandy. 
I've  seen  myself,  and  served  against,  the  French, 
And  they  can  well  on  horseback ;  but  this  gallant 
Had  witchcraft  in't;  he  grew  unto  his  seat; 
And  to  such  wondrous  doing  brought  his  horse. 
As  he  had  been  incorpsed  and  demi-natured 
With   the   brave   beast:   so    far   he   topp'd   my 

thought. 
That  I,  in  forgery  of  shapes  and  tricks. 
Come  short  of  what  he  did. 

Laertes.  A  Norman  was't? 

King.      A  Norman. 

Laer.      Upon  my  life,  Lamond. 

King.  The  very  same. 

Laer.       I  know  him  well :  he  is  the  brooch  indeed 
And  gem  of  all  the  nation. 

Hamlet:  IV,  vii,  82. 

No  suggestion  worthy  of  consideration  regarding 
the  identity  of  the  person  referred  to  as  "  Lamond  " 
in  the  foregoing  lines  has  ever  been  made.  I  enter 
upon  the  inquiry  assuming  that  the  allusion  is  a 
topical  one ;  that  the  country  referred  to  as  "  here  " 
was  England,  and  not  Denmark ;  and  that  the  period 
in  question  was  that  of  Queen  Elizabeth,  and  not 
the  middle  ages. 

In  the  lines  quoted  there  are  five  points  to  be 
considered : 

(1)  Lamond  was  a  gentleman  of  Normandy. 
127 


SHAKSPERE  AND  SIR  WALTER  RALEGH 

(2)  He  had  been  "  here  "  (i.e.,  in  England). 

(3)  He  excelled  in  horsemanship. 

(4)  He  was  the  brooch  and  gem  of  all  the  nation. 

(5)  The  date  of  his  visit  to  England  was  two 
months  prior  to  the  writing  of  the  Fourth  Act  of 
Hamlet  (according  to  the  Second  Quarto,  "two 
months  since ;  "  according  to  the  First  Folio,  "  some 
two  months  "). 

I  submit  for  consideration  the  following  proposi- 
tion: Lamond  was  Charles  de  Gontault,  Due  de 
Biron,  Marshal  of  France;  born  about  1562,  exe- 
cuted in  the  Bastille  by  order  of  Henry  IV,  July  31, 
1602. 

(1)  Upon  examining  the  first  of  the  above  five 
points  ("Here  was  a  gentleman  of  Normandy"), 
we  are  met  at  once  by  the  question  whether 
Normandy  is  to  be  accepted  as  the  birthplace  of 
Lamond,  or  if  the  word  Normandy  is  used  merely 
as  a  mask,  in  a  manner  similar  to  the  use  of  the 
word  Lamond.  But  be  tliis  as  it  may  we  can  obtain 
no  decisive  information,  pro  or  con,  from  this  first 
point,  for  the  reason  that  it  does  not  appear  to  be 
known  where  Biron  was  born.  "  Normandy  "  may 
have  been  used  generically,  for  France  itself:  later 
(1.  134)  the  King  refers  to  Lamond  as  "the 
Frenchman." 

(2)  He  had  been  "  here  "  (i.e.,  in  England).  It 
is  well  known  that  Henry  IV  sent  Biron  on  an  em- 
bassy to  Elizabeth  in  1601. 

(3)  He  excelled  in  horsemanship.  Not  long  after 
Eiron's  death,  George  Chapman  wrote  two  dramas. 
The  Conspiracy  of  Byron  and  The  Tragedy  of 
Byron,  from  which  much  contemporary  evidence  is 

128 


"SHAKESPEARE"  AND  THE  DUG  DE  BmON 

obtainable.  Chapman  therein  refers  to  Byron's  skill 
as  a  horseman  and  mentions  him  in  connection  with 
"  the  brave  beast  "  not  less  than  six  times.  For 
example : 

Your  Majesty  hath  miss'd  a  royal  sight: 
The  Duke  Byron,  on  his  brave  beast  Pastrana, 
Who  sits  him  like  a  full  sail'd  argosy 
Danced  with  a  lofty  billow,  and  as  snug, 
Plies  to  his  bearer,  both  their  motions  mix'd; 
And  being  consider'd  in  their  site  together. 
They  do  the  best  present  the  state  of  man 
In  his  first  royalty  ruling,  etc.,  etc. 

Conspiracy :  II,  i,  249. 

Here  Chapman  writes  that  Byron  "  sits  him 
and  .  .  .  plies  to  his  bearer,  both 
their  motions  mix'd ;  "  and  "  Shakespeare  " :  "  He 
grew  into  his  seat ;  And  to  such  wondrous  doing 
brought  his  horse,  As  he  had  been  incorpsed  and 
demi-natured  With  the  brave  beast,"  etc.,  etc. 

(4)  Lamond  was  the  brooch  and  gem  of  all  the 
nation.  It  is  hardly  necessary  to  cite  evidence  estab- 
lishing this  fourth  point,  other  than  to  indicate 
that  Chapman,  in  the  two  Dramas  mentioned,  fre- 
quently refers  to  the  exalted  position  held  by  the 
Duke.  Thus,  in  the  Prologue  to  The  Conspiracy  of 
Byron:  "  So  admired  Byron  All  F'rance  exempted 
from  comparison."  Again,  at  the  beginning  of 
The  Tragedy  of  Byron  (I,  i,  2):  "What  offices, 
Titles  of  honor,  and  what  admiration,  Could  France 
afford  him  that  it  pour'd  not  on  ?  " 

Biron  was  well  known  to  the  English.  For  a  num- 
ber of  years  many  of  the  officers  and  men  sent  by 
Elizabeth  to  Navarre  served  under  him.  The  com- 
9  129 


SHAKSPERE  AND  SIR  WALTJER  RALEGH 

plimentary  terms  in  which  Laertes  refers  to  him 
undoubtedly  reflect  the  admiration  in  which  he  was 
held  in  Court  circles.  The  fact  that  he  is  the  prin- 
cipal character  in  three  Elizabethan  Dramas  (the 
two  plays  of  Chapman  and  Love's  Labor's  Lost)  is 
likewise  evidence  in  the  same  direction. 

(5)  The  last  point  to  be  considered  in  this  an- 
alysis of  the  Hamlet  passage  is  that  Biron  was  in 
England  "  two  months  since,"  or  "  some  two  months 
since."  This  is  important  as  establishing  the  date 
of  composition  of  Hamlet.  Biron,  accompanied  by 
a  large  retinue,  amved  in  London  "  about  the  fifth 
of  September,  1601."  (Stow,  Abridgement  of  the 
English  Chronicle,  continued  by  Howes  to  1618, 
page  430. )  He  returned  to  France  "  at  the  begin- 
ning of  the  month  of  October,  1601."  (Pierre  Mat- 
thieu,  Histoire  de  France,  Geneva,  1620,  Vol.  II, 
page  113.)  But  as  Matthieu  used  the  New  Style  of 
Calendar  in  his  reckoning  ten  days  must  be  sub- 
tracted. Biron,  therefore,  was  in  England  from 
about  the  fifth  to  about  the  twentieth  of  September, 
1601,  Old  Style.  Therefore,  when  the  King  (in 
Hamlet)  states:  "Two  months  since  Here  was  a 
gentleman  of  Normandy,"  we  may  accept  the  latter 
part  of  November,  or  the  beginning  of  December, 
1601,  as  the  date  of  composition  of  the  Second 
Quarto.  This  date  is  corroborated  by  the  allusion 
to  the  boy-actors  at  Blackfriars,  in  Hamlet,  II,  ii, 
354-379.  (See  Prof.  C.  W.  Wallace,  The  Children 
of  the  Chapel  at  Blackfriars  1599-1603,  Chapters 
XIII-XIV;  University  of  Nebraska,  U.  S.  A., 
1908.)  It  is  also  corroborated  by  the  dates  deduced 
from  the  lines  (I,  i,  118)  referring  to  the  eclipses  of 

130 


"SHAKESPEARE"  AND  THE  DUG  DE  BIRON 

the  moon,  October  27, 1601,  and  November  29, 1601, 
respectively.  Two  other  points  of  evidence  (which, 
while  they  do  not  establish  the  year  in  which  Hamlet 
was  written,  yet  clearly  show  the  time  of  year,)  are 
in  agreement  with  the  foregoing.  These  are,  first, 
the  allusion  (I,  i,  158)  to  "  that  season  Wherein  our 
Saviour's  birth  is  celebrated  "  (the  month  of  De- 
cember) ;  and,  secondly,  the  lines  regarding  the 
"  star  that's  westward  from  the  pole  "  (I,  i,  37). 
This  latter  astronomical  allusion  is  capable  of  exact 
interpretation,  and  establishes  the  month  of  De- 
cember as  the  time  of  year  indicated.  (  See  Appen- 
dix.) Finally,  it  may  be  stated  that  additions  to 
the  tragedy  were  made  in  the  year  1603. 

The  above  is  part  of  one  of  the  articles  {New 
Shakes peareana,  April,  1907,  page  65)  written  be- 
fore I  made  the  discovery  of  Ralegh's  authorship. 
Thus  it  resembles  the  article  on  the  "  Bath  "  Sonnets 
(ante,  Chapter  VI),  and  likewise  was  written  with- 
out any  light  other  than  that  furnished  by  the 
analytical  examination  of  the  allusion  itself.  The 
identification  of  "  Lamond  "  with  the  Due  de  Biron 
was  the  sole  point  I  endeavored  to  establish.  The 
authorship  of  Hamlet  was  not  considered.  I  had  at 
that  time  not  the  most  remote  idea  that  Sir  Walter 
Ralegh  was  the  author  of  the  tragedy. 

I  have  already  observed  that  it  was  the  account  of 
Ralegh's  presence  at  Bath  in  1602,  in  Gosse's  Life 
(page  127),  that  gave  me  the  clue  to  the  true  author- 
ship. So  I  turned  to  that  part  of  the  Volume  which 
dealt  with  the  affairs  of  the  year  1601,  the  year  indi- 
cated by  the  Lamond  allusion,  and  on  page  122  found 
the  following: 

131 


SHAKSPERE  AND  SIR  WALTER  RALEGH 

"  Early  in  September  1601  Ralegh  came  up  on 
business  from  Bath  to  London,  meaning  to  return 
at  once,  but  found  himself  unexpectedly  called  upon 
to  stay  and  fulfil  a  graceful  duty.  Henry  IV  of 
France,  being  at  Calais,  had  sent  the  Due  de  Biron 
with  a  retinue  of  three  hundred  persons,  to  pay  a 
visit  of  compliment  to  Elizabeth.  It  was  important 
that  the  French  favorite  should  be  well  received  in 
England,  but  no  one  expected  him  in  London,  and 
the  Queen  was  travelling.  Sir  Arthur  Savage  and 
Sir  Arthur  Gorges  were  the  Duke's  very  insufficient 
escort,  until  Ralegh  fortunately  made  his  appear- 
ance and  did  the  honors  of  London  in  better  style. 
He  took  the  French  envoys  to  Westminster  Abbey, 
and,  to  their  greater  satisfaction,  to  the  Bear  Gar- 
den. The  Queen  was  now  staying  as  the  guest  of 
the  Marquis  of  Winchester  at  Basing,  and  so,  on 
September  9,  Ralegh  took  the  Duke  and  his  suite 
down  to  the  Vine,  a  house  in  Hampshire,  where  he 
was  royally  entertained.  The  Queen  visited  them 
here,  and  on  the  12th  they  all  came  over  to  stay  with 
her  at  Basing  Park." 

It  was  to  this  occasion  and  to  this  Fi*ench  favorite 
that  the  English  favorite  alluded  in  his  tragedy.  It 
was  a  graceful  compliment : 

I  know  him  well :  he  is  the  brooch  indeed 
And  gem  of  all  the  nation. 

The  reader  may  be  interested  in  reading  Ralegh's 
own  account  of  his  entertainment  of  Biron  given  in 
his  letter  to  Cecil,  as  printed  in  Edwards's  Life  of 
Ralegh,  Vol.  II,  page  233 : 

132 


"SHAKESPEARE"  AND  THE  DUG  DE  BmON 

"  I  am  gladd  I  came  hither,  for  I  never  saw  so 
great  a  person  so  neglected.  He  hathe  bynn  here 
now  left ;  not  one  nobelman  nor  gentelman  tO'  accom- 
pany them  nor  to  gwyde  them.  And  it  is  so  long 
er  they  hard  of  my  Lord  of  Cumberland  as  they 
thought  they  were  neglected.  Wee  have  caried  them 
to  Westminster  to  see  the  monuments ;  and  this 
Mounday  we  entertayned  them  at  the  Bear  Garden, 
which  they  had  great  pleasure  to  see. 

"  Here  hathe  bynn  with  them  Sir  A.  Savage  and 
Sir  Arthur  Gorges,  who  hathe  bynn  their  guides — 
without  whom  they  had  byn  left  allone.  Their  horses 
will  not  be  provided  till  Wensday  morning.  The 
posts  say  they  cannot  take  up  horses  without  cum- 
mission  from  the  Lords  of  Concell. 

"  I  sent  to  and  fro,  and  have  labored  like  a  moyle 
[mule]  to  fashion  tilings  so  as  on  Wensday  night 
they  will  be  at  Bagshoot  and  Thursday  at  the  Vine. 
It  were  good  that  A.  Savage  and  A.  Gorges  weare 
cummanded  to  come,  because  they  speak  French  well, 
and  ar  familliar  with  them. 

"  Your  Honour's  to  do  yow  service, 

W.R. 

"  Crosby  Howse,  this  Mounday  att  6  a'Clock." 

"  Addressed:  To  the  right  honorabell  Sir  Robert 
Cecyll,  Knight,  Principall  Secritary.  For  Her 
Majesties  most  especiall  service. 

W.  Ralegh. 

"  London,  vii  September,  att  ix  a'clock  att  night. 

''Endorsed:  6  Sept.  1601.  Sir  Walter  Raleigh 
to  my  Master.  The  enter taynment  given  to  the 
Duke  of  Byron." 

133 


SHAKSPERE  AND  SIR  WALTER  RALEGH 

There  may  be  some  readers  who  find  it  difficult  to 
believe  that  a  poet  who  aspired  to  the  seventh  heaven 
of  invention  would  condescend  to  embody  in  his 
dramas  matters  of  local  and  ephemeral  interest ;  but, 
with  all  due  respect,  it  may  be  stated  that  such  views 
can  originate  only  from,  an  imperfect  study  of  the 
works  in  question.  A  century  ago  Malone  called 
attention  to  Shakspere's  "  frequent  allusions  to  the 
manners  and  usages  of  England,  and  to  the  events  of 
his  own  time,  which  he  has  described  as  taking  place 
wherever  his  scene  happens  to  lie."  In  1875  Dr. 
A.  W.  Ward  noted  the  topical  treatment  of  these 
dramatic  themes,  "  of  which  historical  and  Uterary 
research  are  only  beginning  to  gauge  the  force." 
Dr.  Appleton  Morgan,  in  his  Introduction  to  the 
Bankside  Comedy  of  Errors,  points  out  the  Eliza- 
bethan allusions  therein,  which  are  so  numerous  and 
so  pronounced  that  he  can  characterize  them  only 
as  harrowing  anachronisms.  No  one  for  a  moment 
imagines  that  the  earthquake  alluded  to  in  Romeo 
and  Juliet  was  an  earthquake  in  Verona  in  the  14th 
century.  No  one  doubts  that,  in  the  Prologue  to  the 
fifth  act  of  Henry  V,  the  "  general  of  our  gracious 
empress  "  was  Essex,  in  Ireland.  There  cannot  be 
the  slightest  uncertainty  regarding  the  map  re- 
ferred to  in  Twelfth  Night  as  "  the  new  map  with  the 
augmentation  of  the  Indies ;  "  or  to  the  travelling 
of  the  players  in  Hamlet;  or  to  the  identity  of  Biron 
in  Love's  Labor's  Lost.  Many  similar  instances 
m.ight  be  given.  What  reason,  therefore,  can  there 
be  for  doubting,  on  this  score,  the  identity  of  Biron 
as  "  Lamond — in  Hamlet?  " 

134 


CHAPTER  XVn 

"  Shakespeare  "  and  King  James  I 

From  almost  the  beginning  of  Elizabeth's  reign 
until  his  death  in  1598,  WilHam  Cecil,  Lord  Burgh- 
ley,  was  the  leading  minister  and  the  most  power- 
ful statesman  of  the  English  government.  His  son, 
Robert  Cecil,  afterwards  Earl  of  Salisbury,  in- 
herited the  ability  and  industry  of  liis  father,  and 
exceeded  him  in  craft.  Bacon's  observation,  that 
the  Cecils  would  permit  no  man  of  talent  to  rise  in 
the  State,  was  eminently  true.  When  occasion  re- 
quired, neither  father  nor  son  hesitated  to  put  in 
practice  the  doctrine  enunciated  by  Machiavelli : 
If  you  have  an  enemy,  you  should  put  it  out  of  his 
power  to  be  an  enemy. 

During  the  lifetime  of  Burghley,  Ralegh  confined 
his  activity  in  public  affairs  to  the  field  of  battle,  to 
naval  campaigns,  and  to  colonial  enterprises.  But 
on  the  death  of  the  old  lion  the  talents  and  ability 
in  state  affairs  so  often  exliibited  in  his  writings  were 
displayed  more  and  more  in  practice.  He  was  am- 
bitious to  figure  as  a  statesman.  He  desired  to  be 
made  a  member  of  the  Privy  Council.  He  crossed 
swords  in  Parliament  with  Robert  Cecil,  who  was 
of  his  own  day  and  generation ;  and  therein  we  find 
the  vulnerable  heel  of  the  Achilles.  For  Cecil,  wily 
and  subterranean  as  he  was,  proved  more  than 
enough  for  the  man  who  "  was  indeed  honest  and 
of  an  open  and  free  nature." 

During  the  closing  years  of  the  Queen's  reign, 
135 


SHAKSPERE  AND  SIR  WALTER  RALEGH 

Cecil  and  his  ally  Henry  Howard,  later  Earl  of 
Northampton,  left  no  means  unemployed  to  check 
and  annul  the  efforts  of  the  man  they  looked  upon 
as  their  rival.  It  was  due  to  this  hidden  influence 
that  Ralegh's  fortune,  as  he  said,  then  came  to  a 
stand.  He  probably  recognized  this  fact  as  shown 
by  his  appeal  to  her  Majesty  in  his  letter  (Edwards, 
Life,  Vol.  II,  page  259),  an  extract  from  which  is 
given  above,  Chapter  IX.  But  he  was  undoubtedly 
ignorant  of  the  extent  to  which  he  was  plotted 
against.  A  slight  illustration  of  the  traps  and  snares 
laid  by  this  faction  is  given  in  a  letter  of  Howard  of 
this  period: 

"  Some  pageants  of  theirs  (of  Ralegh  and  his 
friend  Lord  Cobham,)  must  be  brought  to  light 
daily  that  may  move  her  (Elizabeth's)  spleene,  and 
cheflie,  if  it  be  possible,  some  touch  wherein  they 
seeke  to  make  some  benefit  of  the  Quene  by  delusion 
or  cousening."  (Edwards,  Life,  Vol.  II,  page  438.) 

But  it  was  to  the  rising  sun,  the  future  King,  that 
their  efforts  were  especially  directed.  During  the 
last  years  of  the  Queen's  life,  a  correspondence, 
carefully  concealed,  of  course,  was  carried  on  by 
Cecil  and  Howard  with  James.  As  Stebbing  {Life, 
page  171)  writes: 

'*  An  important  letter  found  among  the  Burgh- 
leigh  papers,  without  date  or  signature,  but  for  good 
cause  attributed  to  Lord  Henry  Howard,  and  prob- 
ably written  towards  the  end  of  Elizabeth's  reign, 
shows  how  eagerly  Cecil  and  Ralegh  were  regarded 
by  their  respective  partisans  as  hostile  competitors. 
In  it  the  writer  (Howard),  with  the  '  Asi- 
136 


"SHAKESPEARE"  AND  KING  JAMES  I 

atic  endless  '  prolixity  which  James  himself  ridiculed, 
propounded  a  plan  for  arranging  that  '  Cobham, 
the  block  all  mighty  that  gives  oracles,  and  Ralegh, 
the  cogging  spirit  that  prompteth  it,'  should  be 
set  in  responsible  positions  in  which  they  v/ould  be 
sure  to  fail.  There  is  no  reason  to  suppose  that  Cecil 
accepted  the  particular  advice.  He  would  be  in- 
clined to  doubt  the  certainty  of  Ralegh's  failure, 
should  an  opportunity  of  distinction  be  afforded  him. 
But  the  document  could  not  have  been  written  unless 
its  author  had  been  positive  of  Cecil's  sympathy  with 
its  object,  the  reduction  of  Ralegh,  by  whatever 
means,  to  a  condition  of  confirmed  obscurity  and 
dependence  .  .  .  (page  175).  Howard  hated 
Ralegh  with  a  virulence  not  easily  explicable,  which 
appeared  to  be  doubled  by  its  abatement  towards 
Cecil.  On  the  testimony  of  his  own  letters  it  is  clear 
he  did  not  mind  how  tortuously  or  perfidiously  he 
worked.  He  calculated  upon  Cobham's  weakness 
and  upon  the  inflammation  of  Ralegh  with  *  some  so 
violent  desire  upon  the  sudden  as  to  bring  him  into 
that  snare  which  he  would  shun  otherwise.'  He 
poisened  James's  mind  incurably  against  '  those 
wicked  villains,'  '  that  crew,'  and  its  '  hypocrisy,' 
the  '  accursed  duality,'  or  *  the  triplicity  that  denies 
the  Trinity.'  By  the  triplicity  he  signified  Ralegh, 
Cobham,  and  Northumberland  .  .  .  (page 
176).  Ralegh  himself  and  Cobham  were,  however, 
the  universal  object  of  his  copious  invectives :  '  You 
may  well  believe,'  he  wrote, '  that  hell  did  never  vomit 
up  such  a  couple.'  Cecil's  own  language  to  James 
was  almost  as  vituperative.     He  was  furious  at  the 

137 


SHAKSPERE  AND  SIR  WALTER  RALEGH 

bare  notion  that  any  should  vie  with  him  for  the 
heir's  confidence.  He  represented  Cobham  and 
Ralegh,  who  were  trying  to  obtain  a  share  of  James's 
favour  as  mere  hypocrites  who  hated  the  King  at 
heart.  If  they  held  themselves  out  as  his  friends,  or 
he  held  himself  out  as  theirs,  James  was  not  to  believe 
it  .  .  .  (page  177).  The  correspondence  of 
Howard  and  Cecil  with  James  breathes  throughout 
a  jealous  terror  that  Cobham  and  Ralegh,  and 
chiefly  Ralegh,  might  either  supersede  them  in 
James's  kindness,  or  steal  into  his  confidence  under 
the  pretext  of  fellowship  with  them,  and  claim  a 
share  in  the  advantages.  Ralegh's  correspondence 
with  the  King,  as  theirs  implies,  has  no  such  malig- 
nant, envious  features.  The  King,  however,  was 
already  incurably  prejudiced.  Howard's  and  Cecil's 
imputations  only  confirmed  an  impression  of  long 
standing." 

Such  was  the  situation  when,  on  March  24th, 
1603,  James  became  King  of  England. 

Before  proceeding  further  we  have  to  consider  cer- 
tain facts  connected  with  the  Tragedy  of  Hamlet,  a 
part  of  which  appears  to  have  been  written  in  this 
year,  1603. 


138 


CHAPTER  XVIII 

"  Shakespeare  "  and  King  James  I  (Continued) 

THE  FIRST   quarto   OF  HAMLET 

It  is  certain  that  a  number  of  the  Plays  of  the 
First  FoKo  were  not  written  at  any  one  specific  time, 
that  there  was  no  definite  date  of  composition,  but 
that  they  were  held  in  a  more  or  less  fluid  state  sub- 
ject to  additions  or  excisions  by  the  poet.  We  have 
already  seen  that  such  revision  took  place  in  Lovers 
Labor^s  Lost.  The  same  is  true  of  Romeo  and 
Juliet  and  other  Dramas.     Among  these  is  Hamlet. 

Here  we  have  notliing  to  do  with  an  old  Play  of 
circa  1589,  of  the  same  name. 

We  know  that  the  tragedy  existed  as  a  complete 
Play,  already  on  the  boards,  prior  to  July  26th, 
1602'.  This  is  proved  by  the  entry  on  the  Stationers' 
Register  of  that  date  with  the  statement  that  it  had 
been  "  latelie  acted."  Much  of  this  version  prob- 
abl}^  was  written  in  November— December,  1601 ;  but 
what  concerns  us  here  is  not  the  former  history  of 
the  tragedy,  but  rather  the  additions  made  at  a  later 
date. 

It  first  appeared  in  print  in  quarto  form  with 
the  date  1603  on  the  title-page.  This  is  known  as 
the  First  Quarto.  It  is  a  mangled,  imperfect,  "  cut  " 
version,  perhaps  taken  down  by  shorthand  at  some 
performance.  It  has  been  commonly  assumed  that 
this  edition  is  the  version  "  latelie  acted  "  in  the 
early  part  of  1602.     Some  think  that  portions  of 

139 


SHAKSPERE  AND  SIR  WALTER  RALEGH 

the  old  Play  of  1589  may  be  contained  in  it.  But 
there  are  reasons  for  believing  that  this  1603  version 
contained  additions  made  in  1603,  the  dramatist 
holding  his  work  in  the  fluid  state,  as  was  his  custom. 
The  additions  in  question  relate  to: 

(1)  The    attitude    of    the    author   towards    the 
King  (Chapter  XIX). 

(2)  A  direct  allusion  to  the  personality  of  King 
James  (Chapter  XX). 

(3)  The  soliloquy  on  suicide  (Chapter  XXII). 


140 


CHAPTER  XIX 

"  Shakespeare  "  and  King  James  I  (Continued) 

KING  CI^UDIUS  (in  HAMLET )  AND  JAMES  I 

It  is  difficult  for  anyone  of  our  time  to  realize  the 
high  position  held  by  a  "  favorite  "  in  the  Tudor- 
Stuart  period.  To  such  a  one  was  granted  immense 
power.  He  was  an  object  of  admiration  and  envied 
by  the  entire  Court.  He  was  the  dispenser  of  royal 
favors.  To  him  the  greatest  nobles  of  the  land 
brought  their  suits.  He  had  his  followers,  his  fac- 
tion, his  party,  and  in  many  cases  o'er-topped  the 
highest  officials  of  the  Crown. 

To  this  position  Ralegh  was  raised  by  Queen 
Elizabeth.  The  talented  courtier,  romantic,  poeti- 
cal, chivalrous,  had  caught  her  fancy.  As  his  biog- 
rapher Stebbing  (page  25)  obsei-ves,  "  she  discerned 
his  special  gifts — '  good  presence  in  a  handsome 
and  well-compacted  person,'  the  strong  natural  wit 
and  a  better  judgment.  .  .  .  She  must  have 
been  conscious  of  capacities  to  which  appeal  was 
never  made  in  vain.  She  showered  lucrative  grants 
upon  him,  the  wine-licensing  Patent,  the  Rangership 
of  Gillingham  Forest,  the  Lieutenancy  of  Portland 
Castle,  the  Governorship  of  Jersey.  She  appointed 
him  Lord  Warden  of  the  Stanneries,  Lieutenant  of 
Cornwall,  Vice-Admiral  of  Cornwall  and  Devon,  and 
Captain  of  the  Yeomen  of  the  Guard.  She  bestowed 
upon  him  immense  estates  in  Ireland,  his  fine  country 

141 


SHAKSPERE  AND  SIR  WALTER  RALEGH 

seat  at  Sherborne,  his  London  palace  Durham  House, 
and  many  broad  lands  throughout  England.  These 
were  his  happy  days.  He  shone  in  splendid  raiment, 
in  costly  silver  armor,  in  gems  and  great  pearls. 
He  loved  architecture,  gardens  and  flowers,  pictures 
and  books,  and  immense  retinues  of  servants." 

At  the  very  outset  of  his  career  as  a  courtier  he 
accompanied  Elizabeth's  suitor,  the  Duke  of  Anjou, 
to  Antwerp  with  the  Earl  of  Leicester,  the  Lord 
Admiral,  Sir  Philip  Sidney,  and  other  great  ones 
of  the  great  world.  His  good  offices  were  sought  by 
the  leaders  of  the  nation.  Lord  Burghley  solicited 
his  intercession  with  Elizabeth,  the  Earl  of  Pem- 
broke made  choice  of  him  as  the  channel  of  his 
suits  to  her  Majesty,  the  Earl  of  Leicester  was  glad 
to  learn  from  him  that  he,  the  Earl,  was  still  the 
Queen's  "  Sweet  Robin."  In  1589  Sir  Walter  wrote 
to  his  cousin,  George  Carew  (Edwards,  Life,  Vol.  II, 
page  1 )  :  "  I  am  in  place  to  be  beleved  not  inferior  to 
any  man,  to  plesure  or  displesure  the  greatest ;  and 
my  oppinion  is  so  receved  and  beleved  as  I  can  anger 
the  best  of  them."  He  was  "  The  courtier's,  soldier's, 
scholar's,  eye,  tongue,  sword."  He  was  "  the  ob- 
served of  all  observers." 

This  was  the  man  Avho  went  to  meet  James  I  in 
1603. 

The  age  of  chivalry  had  of  course  ended  when 
Elizabeth  ascended  the  throne,  but  the  after-glow 
from  the  light  of  those  days  still  illuminated  her 
reign.  The  customs  of  a  by-gone  age,  the  martial 
pride,  the  pageantry,  the  tilts,  the  tourneys  still 
obtained.    The  fact  that  the  sovereign  was  a  woman 

142 


"SHAKESPEARE"  AND  KING  JAMES  I 

accounted  for,  as  also  it  enhanced,  the  chivalrous 
and  romantic  sentiment  with  which  her  subjects  re- 
garded her.  Hence  the  gorgeous  pageants,  the  adu- 
lations, the  devotion  of  her  courtiers.  She  was  the 
Cynthia  of  a  thousand  poets  and  romance  writers, 
the  Gloriana,  the  maid  of  Dian's,  the  fair  vestal 
throned  by  the  west.  Throughout  her  reign  she 
ever  held  the  high  position  thus  accorded  her — the 
Queen  who  was  the  imperial  votaress,  the  woman  who 
was  every  inch  a  Queen. 

And  she  was  succeeded  by  James. 

No  greater  contrast  between  two  sovereigns  can  be 
imagined.  The  polished  courtier,  the  favorite,  the 
man  so  familiar  with  the  grace  and  charm  of  her 
Majesty,  must  have  viewed  with  astonishment  the 
new  King.  His  coarse  manners,  his  ungainly  per- 
son, his  cowardice,  his  pedantry,  rendered  him  an 
object  of  derision  if  not  of  contempt.  In  the  words 
of  Macaulay  he  exhibited  himself  to  the  world  stam- 
mering, slobbering,  shedding  unmanly  tears,  trem- 
bling at  a  drawn  sword,  and  talking  in  the  style  alter- 
nately of  a  buffoon  and  a  pedagogue  {History,  1858, 
Vol.  I,  page  74).  Sir  Walter  met  him  at  Burghley 
House  in  April,  and  again  at  his  cousin  Carew's 
house  in  May.  Well  may  he  have  written  at  this 
later  date — perhaps  two  months  after  Elizabeth's 
death : 

That  it  should  come  to  this ! 
But  two  months  dead !  nay  not  so  much,  not  two, 
So  excellent  a  King;  that  was,  to  this, 
Hyperion  to  a  satyr. 

Havilet:  I,  ii,  140. 
143 


SHAKSPERE  AND  SIR  WALTER  RALEGH 

For,  saving  the  change  of  sex  due  to  the  exigencies 
of  the  plot,  the  former  Queen  certainly  was  to  James, 
with  his  worthless  minions  and  Italianated  habits,  as 
Hyperion  to  a  satyr. 

Be  this  as  it  may,  however,  Sir  Walter  was  made 
to  feel  at  once  the  alteration  in  his  prospects  brought 
about  by  this  great  change.  At  the  very  outset  the 
King  greeted  him  with  a  crude  jest  on  his  name: 
"  Rawly !  Rawly !  true  enough,  for  I  think  of  thee 
very  rawly,  mon."  (Aubrey,  Brief  Lives,  Vol.  II, 
page  186.)  He  ordered  the  speedy  dispatch  of  his 
affairs  that  he  might  be  rid  of  himi,  and  sent  him 
about  his  business. 

The  triumph  of  his  enemies  became  at  once  appar- 
ent. He  was  deprived  of  his  office  as  Captain  of  the 
Guard.  His  dues  from  his  Wine  Patent  were  sus- 
pended and  a  large  part  of  his  income  immediately 
cut  off.  He  was  ejected  from  his  London  estab- 
lishment, Durham  House,  on  such  short  notice  that, 
as  he  himself  wrote,  the  action  was  "  contrary  to 
honor,  custom  and  civility  "  (Edwards,  Life,  Vol.  II, 
page  270). 

His  downfall  was  apparent  to  all.  The  very 
ballad-makers  proclaimed  it  to  the  world.  The  well- 
laid  plans  of  Cecil  and  his  faction  bore  fruit.  Men 
wondered  at  the  ascendency  the  latter  enjoyed  as 
his  Majesty's  Prime  Minister  and  Chief  Councillor. 

On  the  other  hand  Ralegh,  as  Osborne  wrote, 
"  wanting  strength,  though  not  wit,  to  be  the  Treas- 
urer's (Cecil's)  CO- rival,  perished  because  not 
thought  to  own  humility  enough  to  be  his  servant." 
Such  treatment  produced  the  natural  result.     The 

144 


"SHAKESPEARE"  AND  KING  JAMES  I 

proud  courtier  whose  position  had  formerly  been 
such  that  he  could  pleasure  or  displeasure  the  great- 
est, was  reduced  to  a  position  of  ignominious  de- 
pendence. Cecil  himself  wrote,  apparently  with 
satisfaction,  that  Ralegh  was  "  discontented  in  the 
eyes  of  all  ever  since  the  King'  came."  Beaumont, 
the  French  Ambassador,  reporting  to  his  home  gov- 
ernment on  April  22d,  1603,  referred  specifically 
to  Sir  Walter's  fury  at  the  success  of  the  Cecil  fac- 
tion and  his  own  discomfiture. 

Just  at  the  time — as  I  hold — that  these  events 
were  taking  place,  when  Ralegh's  rage  at  his  humilia- 
tion was  the  greatest,  "  Shakespeare  "  was  engaged 
in  revising  a  Play  in  which  a  King  is  attacked  in 
language  so  violent  that  a  parallel  cannot  be  found 
in  any  Drama  of  our  language : 

0  villain,   villain,   smiling   damned   villain! 

Hamlet:  I,  v,  106. 

For  it  cannot  be 
But  I  am  pigeon-liver'd  and  lack  gall 
To  make  oppression  bitter,  or  ere  this 

1  should  have  fatted  all  the  region  kites 
With  this  slave's  offal. 

II,  ii,  551. 

Then  we  have  the  lines  that  so  shocked  Dr. 
Johnson : 

Then  trip  him,  that  his  heels  may  kick  at  heaven. 
And  that  his  soul  may  be  as  damn'd  and  black 
As  hell,  whereto  it  goes. 

Ill,  iii,  93. 
10  145 


SHAKSPERE  AND  SIR  WALTER  RALEGH 

A  slave  that  is  not  twentieth  part  the  tithe 
Of  your  precedent  lord;  a  vice  of  kings    .    .    . 
A  king  of  shreds  and  patches. 

Ill,  iv,  97. 

King.     What  dost  thou  mean  by  this? 
Hamlet.     Nothing  but  to  show  you  how  a  king  may 
go  a  progress  through  the  guts  of  a  beggar. — IV,  iii,  31. 

All  these  in  mangled  form  are  in  the  Quarto  of 
1603. 

Several  base  Kings  figure  in  the  Historical  Plays 
of  the  First  Folio.  But  not  one  of  these  is  attacked 
with  the  virulency  and  rancor  with  which  the  author 
of  Hamlet  holds  up  to  contempt  King  Claudius 
of  that  Drama.  That  under  cover  of  this  character 
Sir  Walter  attacked  the  man  who  caused  his  great 
fall,  is  my  view.  It  involves  the  proposition  that  the 
foregoing  passages  were  additions  to  the  Play  acted 
in  1602,  and  that  these  additions  were  made  in  the 
Spring  of  1603.  There  is  no  external  evidence  to  this 
eflPect,  but  there  is  no  evidence  opposed  to  it.  There 
is  no  difficulty  as  to  the  dates ;  for  the  First  Quarto 
was  almost  certainly  printed  late  in  the  year,  after 
the  cessation  (about  Christmas,  1603)  of  the  terrific 
plague  that  had  raged  in  London,  having  caused  the 
death  of  over  30,000  people,  and  having  sent  every 
one  flying  from  the  pest-ridden  city  who  could  pos- 
sibly escape.  It  will  be  remembered  that  in  those 
times  the  year  1603  ended  on  what  is  now  known  as 
March  24th,  1604. 


146 


CHAPTER  XX 

"Shakespeare"  and  King  James  I  (Continued) 

Looke  you  now,  here  is  your  husband. 

With  a  face  like  Vulcan. 

A  looke  fit  for  a  murder  and  a  rape, 

A  dull  dead  hanging  looke,  and  a  hell-bred  eie. 

To  arffright  children  and  amaze  the  world. 

First  Quarto  of  Hamlet,  1.  1478. 

We  have  here  further  evidence  identifying  King 
Claudius  of  the  tragedy  with  King  James. 

The  above  lines  are  found  in  the  Quarto  of  1603 
only.  The  passage  occurs  in  the  scene  in  which 
Hamlet,  in  his  interview  with  his  mother  in  her  closet, 
comments  on  the  portrait  of  Claudius.  Like  the 
major  part  of  this  broken  version,  these  lines  are 
probably  but  an  imperfect  presentation  of  the  text 
as  the  dramatist  wrote  it.  But  what  they  do  give  is 
sufficient. 

In  the  portraits  of  James  the  "  dull  dead  hanging 
looke  "  is  evident,  I  think,  to  everyone. 

But  we  find  grounds  still  more  relative  in  estab- 
lishing the  point  at  issue.    In  the  allusion  to  the  eyes, 

a  hell-bred  eie. 
To  affright  children   and  amaze  the  world, 

we  have  a  specific  description  of  Claudius's  eyes. 
Why  so.^*  Whom  did  the  author  have  in  mind  when 
describing  the  base  King  of  the  tragedy.'^ 

I  quote  from  Sir  Anthony  Weldon's  description  of 
the  first  of  the  Stuarts   (Court  and  Character  of 

147 


SHAKSPERE  AND  SIR  WALTER  RALEGH 

King  James :  Secret  History  of  the  Court  of  James 
the  First,  Edinburgh,  1811,  Vol.  I,  page  1). 

"  His  eyes  large,  ever  rolling  after  any  stranger 
that  came  in  his  presence,  inasmuch  as  many  for 
shame  have  left  the  room,  as  being  out  of  counte- 
nance." 

There  is  nothing  in  the  sources  on  which  the 
tragedy  of  Hamlet  is  based  that  is  suggestive,  even 
to  the  faintest  degree,  of  this  personal  allusion.  In 
fact  it  was  too  personal,  too  near  the  truth.  Conse- 
quently the  passage  was  dropped  from  succeeding 
versions.  The  next  edition  of  the  Play  was  printed 
in  1604 — after  Ralegh's  downfall  and  his  sentence 
to  death  as  a  traitor — with  the  passage  omitted. 

Unless,  then,  it  referred  too  conspicuously  to  the 
reigning  King,  why  should  it  have  been  dropped 
from  the  later  texts .'' 

The  conclusion  which  I  think  may  be  legitimately 
drawn  from  the  facts  presented  in  these  last  two 
Chapters,  is  that  we  have  in  King  Claudius,  to  a  cer- 
tain extent,  that  "  vice  of  kings  " — which  in  modern 
English  is  that  buffoon  of  kings,  as  Macaulay  called 
him, — who  then  sat  on  the  English  throne.  It  was 
against  him — against  James — that  the  once  power- 
ful courtier  in  his  pride  and  anger  vented  his  con- 
tempt. He  struck  at  the  abject  creature  whose  first 
greeting  had  been  an  insult  and  whose  enmity  had 
caused  his  humiliation. 

Beaumont's  statement  as  to  Ralegh's  fury,  and 
Weldon's  description  of  James's  eyes  furnish 
strong  testimony.  The  dates  also,  as  we  have  seen, 
are  in  accord.     The  first  true  text  of  the  tragedy, 

148 


"SHAKESPEARE"  AND  KING  JAMES  I 

pretty  much  as  we  now  have  it,  was  not  published 
until  1604 — after  all  the  above-mentioned  events 
connected  with  Sir  Walter's  career  had  occurred. 
But  even  the  1603  Quarto  was  doubtless  printed 
after  the  occurrence  of  these  events — in  ample  time 
for  the  insertion  of  the  allusions  in  question.  Against 
this  view  no  valid  argument  can  be  presented;  nor 
is  any  known  fact  opposed  to  it. 


149 


CHAPTER  XXI 
"Shakespeare"  and  King  James  I  (Continued) 

JOHN  da  VIES  OF  HEREFORD 

Considering  James's  views  regarding  the  divine 
right  of  Kings,  it  was  a  bold  proceeding  for  any 
dramatist  to  attack  a  King  as  Claudius  was  attacked 
in  Hamlet.  Such  action,  however,  was  quite  in  keep- 
ing with  the  impulsive  temperament  of  Ralegh. 
Henry  Howard  knew  his  man  when  he  calculated 
upon  the  inflammation  of  Sir  Walter  with  "  some  so 
violent  desire  upon  the  sudden  "  as  would  bring 
him  into  trouble. 

There  is  no  record  extant  showing  that  Hamlet 
was  one  of  the  many  Plays  that  were  acted  before 
the  King,  but  it  is  most  likely  that  he  witnessed  it. 
James  was  fond  of  the  drama.  In  Scotland  he  had 
but  little  opportunity  of  indulging  his  tastes.  When 
the  opportunity  did  offer  the  most  was  made  of  it, 
as  is  shown  by  the  warm  reception  accorded  Fletcher 
and  his  troop  in  Edinburgh  in  1601.  One  of  James's 
first  acts  on  ascending  the  English  throne  was  the 
appointment  of  the  Globe  Company  of  Players  as 
His  Majesty's  Servants.  To  this  troop  belonged 
the  copyright  of  Hamlet.  The  Play  was  a  new  one 
and  much  in  vogue.  We  may  safely  assume  that 
he  saw  it. 

That  he  did  not  approve  of  the  contemptuous 
characterization  of  Claudius  is  also  evident.  He 
was  told  that  a  King  is  a  damned  smiling  villain, 

150 


ilENIlY,    I'lilXCE    Ul'    WALES 


"SHAKESPEARE"  AND  KING  JAMES  I 

that  all  the  kites  of  the  air  may  feed  on  his  offal, 
that  his  damned  black  soul  may  go  to  hell,  that  he 
is  a  buffoon,  and  that  he  may  go  through  the  guts  of 
a  beggar.  To  the  man  who  held  that  a  King  is 
God's  vicegerent  on  earth  such  treatment  of  royalty 
must  have  been  offensive  in  the  highest  degree.  Still 
more  heavy  must  have  been  his  condemnation  of  the 
author. 

About  1611  John  Davies  of  Hereford  addressed 
to  "  Shakespeare  "  the  following  lines  (Works,  Epi- 
gram 159,  Grosart,  Vol.  II,  page  26): 

To  our  English  Terence,  Mr.  Will  Shake-speare. 

Some  say  (good  Will)  which  I,  in  sport,  do  sing, 
Had'st  thou  not  plaid  some  Kingly  parts  in  sport. 

Thou  had'st  bin  a  companion  for  a  King; 
And  been  a  King  among  the  meaner  sort,  etc. 

This  is  the  same  Davies  who,  in  another  so-called 
epigram,  laughed  at  actor  Shakspere  in  his  golden 
coat,  as  we  have  seen. 

The  address  of  the  Epigram  "  To  our  English 
Terence "  is  significant.  Terence  is  believed  by 
many  to  have  been  a  man-of-straw,  under  whose  name 
some  unknown  Latin  dramatist  published  his  works. 
It  was  not  without  purpose  that  Davies  so  addressed 
his  poem.  His  employment  of  a  hyphenated  word 
"  Shake-speare "  is  another  reason  for  believing 
that  he  was  addressing  some  one  whose  identity  and 
real  name  he  did  not  care  to  reveal. 

Davies  was  writing  master  to  Henry,  Prince  of 
Wales.  The  young  Prince,  at  this  time  in  about  his 
eighteenth  year,  was  warmly  attached  to  Ralegh, 

151 


SHAKSPERE  AND  SIR  WALTER  RALEGH 

and  obtained  from  King  James  a  promise  that  his 
illustrious  prisoner  should  be  pardoned  and  that  his 
Sherborne  estates  should  be  restored  to  him.  Davies 
therefore  was  in  position  to  obtain  inside  information 
from  the  Prince,  who  was  so  friendly  to  Sir  Walter 
and  so  thoroughly  familiar  with  his  history.  That 
the  above  epigram  refers  to  Ralegh  I  have  but  little 
doubt.  It  is  a  rational  interpretation  of  a  poem  that 
hitherto  has  been  inexplicable,  and  appears  to  be  a 
direct  reference  to  the  offense  taken  by  James  at 
Ralegh's  rash  action. 

Quite  in  accord  with  this  view  is  Howard's  sug- 
gestion, of  a  year  or  so  earlier,  that  some  pageants 
of  Ralegh's  or  Cobham's  should  be  brought  to  light 
that  would  move  the  spleen  of  Queen  Elizabeth. 


152 


CHAPTER  XXII 
Hamlet's  Soliloquy 

The  soliloquy  is  really  a  debate :  "  To  be  or  not  to 
be :  Whether  'tis  nobler  in  the  mind  to  suffer,  Or  to 
take  arms,"  etc.  (Ill,  i,  56). 

But  it  is  more  than  a  debate,  it  is  an  explanation. 
Inferentially  the  speaker  is  ready  to  commit  self- 
murder — to  end  the  heart-ache  of  this  life.  But 
although  such  a  consummation  is  devoutly  to  be 
wished,  he  immediately  informs  us  of  the  reasons  that 
give  him  pause,  that  puzzle  his  will,  that  stay  his 
hand.  And  nothing  comes  of  it  all :  there  is  no  sui- 
cide :  this  is  the  last  we  hear  of  the  matter.  In  other 
tragedies  in  which  the  principal  actors  commit 
suicide  (Romeo,  Juliet,  Brutus,  Othello),  such  action 
is  an  integral  part  of  the  plot.  The  whole  Play  leads 
up  to  the  event,  nor  is  there  any  soliloquizing  on 
death.  Romeo's  last  words  are  of  Juliet,  Juliet's 
of  Romeo;  Brutus  as  he  runs  on  his  sword  refers  to 
Caesar;  Othello,  to  a  turban'd  Turk  whom  he  once 
met  in  Aleppo.  But  in  Hamlet  we  find,  in  perhaps 
the  most  celebrated  passage  in  all  the  Plays,  an  elab- 
orate dissertation  on  death  and  the  future  life 
spoken  by  a  character  who  is  eager  to  sweep  to  his 
revenge,  who,  as  he  states  in  the  scene  immediately 
preceding,  is  prompted  to  his  revenge  by  heaven 
and  hell,  and  who  does  not  attempt  suicide  at  all. 
The  soliloquy  interrupts  the  trend  of  the  Play, 
and  is  inserted  between  two  closely  connected  scenes, 
one  with  the  player  who  speaks  -^neas's  tale  to  Dido, 
etc.,  and  the  other  in  which  "  The  Mouse-trap  "  is 
presented.      All  considerations   indicate,   therefore, 

153 


SHAKSPERE  AND  SIR  WALTER  RALEGH 

that  it  is  a  late  insertion,  perhaps  later  than  the 
passages  anathematizing  Claudius  and  referring  to 
his  eyes.  If  it  be  true  that  "  Hamlet  "  is  "  Shake- 
speare," how  can  this  inconsistency  be  explained? 
For  the  answer  to  this  question  let  us  refer  to  the 
biographies  of  Ralegh,  which  give  the  details  of 
the  plot  wherein  he,  be-netted  round  by  villainies, 
was  involved  by  his  enemies.  About  the  middle  of 
July,  1603,  he  was  arrested  as  a  traitor  and  imr 
prisoned  in  the  Tower  of  London. 

A  letter  of  Robert  Cecil's  written  early  in  August, 
1603,  furnishes  the  answer  we  seek.  "  Although 
lodged  and  attended  as  well  as  in  his  own  house,  yet 
one  afternoon,  while  divers  of  us  were  in  the  Tower, 
examining  these  prisoners.  Sir  Walter  Ralegh  at- 
tempted to  have  murdered  himself.  Whereof  when 
we  were  advertised,  we  came  to  him,  and  found  him 
in  some  agony,  seeming  to  be  unable  to  endure  his 
misfortune,  and  protesting  innocency  with  careless- 
ness of  life."     (Stebbing,  page  194.) 

Beaumont,  the  French  Ambassador,  wrote  to 
Henry  IV  that  Ralegh's  design  was  formed  in  order 
that  his  fate  might  not  serve  as  a  triumph  to  his 
enemies,  whose  power  to'  put  him  to  death,  despite 
his  innocency,  he  well  knew.     (Ibid.,  page  195.) 

Just  before  the  attempted  suicide,  Ralegh  wrote  a 
letter  to  his  wife  (Edwards,  Vol.  II,  page  383).^* 
There  can  be  no  doubt  as  to  the  authenticity  of  this 

"  Edwards  gives  the  letter  as  printed  by  the  Rev.  J.  S. 
Brewer  from  MS  Yelverton  XVI,  fol.  100,  a  nearly  contem- 
poraneous transcript  in  the  Library  of  All  Souls  College, 
Oxford.  The  miscellaneous  Volume  came  to  the  College  trom 
the  collection  of  Narcissus  Luttrell.  Gosse  {Ralegh,  page 
138)  refers  to  "  the  passionate  and  pathetic  letter  addressed 
to  Lady  Ralegh." 

154 


HAMLET'S  SOLILOQUY 

letter,  since  in  it  he  refers  to  certain  debts  due  by 
him  and  to  him  (which  I  omit),  several  of  which 
are  again  mentioned  in  his  letters  {Ibid.,  Vol.  II, 
pages  286,  299,  320).  These  financial  matters  were 
known  to  himself  only,  the  letter  is  authentic  beyond 
doubt.     I  give  the  following  extract : 

"  Receive  from  thy  unfortunate  husband  these 
his  last  lines ;  these  the  last  words  that  ever  thou 
shalt  receive  from  him.  That  I  can  live  never  to 
see  thee  and  my  child  more ! — I  cannot.  I  have 
desired  God  and  disputed  with  my  reason,  but  nature 
and  compassion  hath  the  victory.  That  I  can  live 
to  think  how  you  are  both  left  a  spoil  to  my  enemies 
and  that  my  name  shall  be  a  dishonor  to  my  child, — 
I  cannot.  I  cannot  endure  the  memory  thereof. 
Unfortunate  woman,  unfortunate  child,  comfort 
yourselves ;  trust  God,  and  be  contented  with  your 
poor  estate.  I  would  have  bettered  it,  if  I  had  en- 
joyed a  few  years.  Thou  art  a  young  woman,  and 
forbear  not  to  marry  again.  It  is  now  nothing  to 
me ;  thou  art  no  more  mine  ;  nor  I  thine.  To  witness 
that  thou  didst  love  me  once,  take  care  that  thou 
marry  not  to  please  sense,  but  to  avoid  poverty,  and 
to  preserve  thy  child.    .    .    . 

"  For  myself,  I  am  left  of  all  men  that  have  done 
good  to  many.  All  my  good  turns  forgotten  ;  all  my 
errors  revived  and  expounded  to  all  extremity  of  ill. 
All  my  services,  hazards,  and  expenses  for  my  coun- 
try— plantings,  discoveries,  fights,  councils,  and 
whatsoever  else — malice  hath  now  covered  over.  I 
am  now  made  an  enemy  and  traitor  by  the  word  of 
an  unworthy  man.  He  hath  proclaimed  me  to  be 
a  partaker  of  his  vain  imaginations,  notwithstand- 

155 


SHAKSPERE  AND  SIR  WALTER  RALEGH 

ing  the  whole  course  of  my  life  approved  the  con- 
trary, as  my  death  shall  approve  it.  Woe,  woe,  woe 
be  unto  him  by  whose  falsehood  we  are  lost.  He  hath 
separated  us  asunder.  He  hath  slain  my  honor; 
my  fortune.  He  hath  robbed  thee  of  thy  husband, 
thy  child  of  his  father,  and  me  of  you  both.  O  God ! 
Thou  dost  know  my  wrongs.  Know,  then,  thou  my 
wife,  and  child, — know,  then,  thou  my  Lord  and 
King,  that  I  ever  thought  them  too  honest  to  betray, 
and  too  good  to  conspire  against. 

"  But,  my  wife,  forgive  thou  all,  as  I  do.  Live 
humble,  for  thou  hast  but  a  time  also.  God  forgive 
my  Lord  Harry,  for  he  was  my  heavy  enemy.  And 
for  my  Lord  Cecill,  I  thought  he  would  never  for- 
sake me  in  extremity.  I  would  not  have  done  it  him, 
God  knows.  But  do  not  thou  know  it,  for  he  must 
be  master  of  thy  child  and  may  have  compassion  of 
him.  Be  not  dismayed,  that  I  died  in  despair  of 
God's  mercies.  Strive  not  to  dispute  it.  But  assure 
thyself  that  God  hath  not  left  me,  nor  Satan  tempted 
me.  Hope  and  Despair  live  not  together.  I  know 
it  is  forbidden  to  destroy  ourselves ;  but  I  trust  it  is 
forbidden  in  this  sort — that  we  destroy  not  ourselves 
despairing  of  God's  mercy.  The  mercy  of  God  is  im- 
measurable ;  the  cogitations  of  men  comprehend  it  not. 

"  In  the  Lord  I  have  ever  trusted ;  and  I  know  that 
my  Redeemer  liveth.  Far  be  it  from  me  to  be  tempted 
with  Satan ;  I  am  only  tempted  with  Sorrow,  whose 
sharp  teeth  devour  my  heart.  O  God!  Thou  art 
goodness  itself.  Thou  canst  not  but  be  merciful  to 
me!     ... 

"  Oh,  what  will  my  poor  servants  think,  at  their 
return,  when  they  Hear  I  am  accused  to  be  Spanish 

156 


HAMLET'S  SOLILOQUY 

who  sent  them — at  my  great  charge — to  plant  and 
discover  upon  his  territory. 

"  Oh,  intolerable  infamy  !  O  God !  I  cannot  re- 
sist these  thoughts.  I  cannot  live  to  think  how  I  am 
derided,  to  think  of  the  expectation  of  my  enemies, 
the  scorns  I  shall  receive,  the  cruel  words  of  lawyers, 
the  infamous  taunts  and  the  despites,  to  be  made  a 
wonder  and  a  spectacle !  0  Death !  hasten  thou  unto 
me  that  thou  mayest  destroy  the  memory  of  these 
and  lay  me  up  in  dark  forgetfulness.  O  Death ! 
destroy  my  memory  which  is  my  tormentor;  my 
thoughts  and  my  life  cannot  dwell  in  one  body.  But 
do  thou  forget  me,  poor  wife,  that  thou  mayest  live 
to  bring  up  my  poor  child. 

"  And  the  Lord  knows  my  sorrow  to  part  from 
thee  and  my  poor  child.  But  part  I  must,  by  ene- 
mies and  injuries;  part  with  shame,  and  triumph  of 
my  detractors.  And  therefore  be  contented  with  this 
work  of  God,  and  forget  me  in  all  things,  but  thine 
own  honor  and  the  love  of  mine. 

"  I  bless  my  poor  child,  and  let  him  know  his  father 
was  no  traitor.  Be  bold  of  my  innocence,  for  God — to 
Whom  I  offer  life  and  soul — knows  it.  And  whosoever 
thou  choose  again  after  me,  let  him  be  but  thy  poli- 
tique husband.  But  let  my  son  be  thy  beloved,  for  he 
is  part  of  me,  and  I  live  in  him ;  and  the  difference  is 
but  in  the  number  and  not  in  the  kind.  And  the  Lord 
forever  keep  thee  and  them,  and  give  thee  comfort  in 
both  worlds."    (Without  signature  or  address.) 

That  this  cry  of  anguish  and  despair  finds  its 
counterpart  in  the  tragedy  of  Hamlet,  and  especially 
the  great  soliloquy,  I  think  will  be  evident  to  any 
reader.     For  consider  the  circumstances : 

137 


SHAKSPERE  AND  SIR  WALTER  RALEGH 

We  have  a  tragedy  published  in  1603,  and  most 
probably  near  the  end  of  that  year  (January- 
March,  Old  Style,  for  the  year  ended  March  24th), 
after  the  cessation  of  the  great  Plague  which  had 
devastated  London.  In  that  tragedy  we  have  a 
debate  on  suicide  a  propos  of  nothing  in  so  far  as 
the  plot  and  action  are  concerned. 

Before  the  year  1603  was  four  months  old — and 
perhaps  six  or  eight  months  before  the  Quarto  was 
printed — we  find  a  proud  and  high-spirited  courtier, 
a  man  who  was  at  once  a  statesman  and  a  poet,  in- 
volved by  his  enemies  in  just  such  a  plot  as  Howard 
had  not  long  before  proposed.  A  prisoner  in  the 
Tower,  he  attempts  suicide.  Overwhelmed  and  in 
the  state  of  mental  agony  so  vividly  portrayed  in 
his  letter,  we  find  him  facing  the  problem  that  forms 
the  basis  of  the  soliloquy.  "  I  have  disputed  with  my 
reason,"  he  writes,  in  his  letter,  wherein  he  presents 
the  same  dispute  as  in  the  Drama.  In  the  thought  of 
death,  on  the  eve  of  that  journey  from  which  "no 
traveller  returns,"  we  find  in  the  depression,  the  heart- 
ache, and  the  despair  of  the  man  the  origin  and  in- 
spiration of  these  immortal  lines  of  his  masterpiece. 

Professor  Herford,  in  his  Eversley  edition  (In- 
troduction to  Hamlet,  Vol.  VIII,  page  125),  has 
very  truly  observed  that  Hamlet  is  the  most  individ- 
ual of  Shakspere's  works — that  it  is  penetrated 
with  the  personal  accent  beyond  any  other  dramatic 
utterance  of  man.  He  is  undoubtedly  correct  when 
he  states :  "  What  is  clear  is  that  '  Shakespeare  ' 
had  himself  lived  through  all  the  desolation  which 
he  makes  Hamlet  express." 

158 


'Tam  MatVi;      GtuamHercuti 


(J  Jie  trite  am  lively •P'^i'a^ltuft 
oftlteC'w.  ^amCfearneiCXnia^ 


CHAPTER  XXIII 

Measure  for  Measure 

Claudio.  A.J,  but  to  die,  and  go  we  know  not  where, 
etc. — Meas.  for  Mens,:  III,  i,  118. 

It  is  important  to  note  the  date  of  composition  of 
this  Play.  Apparently  it  is  one  of  those  that  were 
completed  at  one  time  and  not  revised  later.  It 
followed  close  upon  Hamlet,  and  may  be  dated  as 
of  1603-4.  Allusions  to  James's  dislike  of  crowds, 
to  the  Plague,  and  to  other  events  of  the  day  occur. 
The  prison  scenes,  illustrative  of  Ralegh's  confine- 
ment in  the  Tower,  are  also  suggestive. 

Possibly  the  Play  was  written  between  Hallowe'en, 
1603  (II,  i,  130),  and  "Philip  and  Jacob,"  i.e.. 
May  1st,  1604  (III,  ii,  214). 

This  being  the  case  it  is  but  natural  that  we  should 
find  Ralegh's  mind  still  reverting  to  thoughts  of 
death.  The  lines  given  above  present  one  aspect,  the 
somewhat  long  passage  of  the  Duke's,  at  the  begin- 
ning of  Act  III,  another.  "  Out  of  the  depths  have 
I  cried ;  "  and  the  nearness  of  the  valley  of  the 
shadow  of  death,  which  Ralegh  had  experienced  in 
his  attempt  at  suicide,  undoubtedly  left  an  impress 
on  his  mind  that  may  have  found  expression  in  these 
two  Dramas.  Hamlet  and  Measure  for  Measure  are 
in  this  respect  sister  Plays. 

It  is  interesting  to  discover  the  similarity  of  the 
views  on  death  held  by  Ralegh  as  expressed  in  his 
letters  and  in  these  Dramas.    For  example: 

159 


SHAKSPERE  AND  SIR  WALTER  RALEGH 

Or  tliat  the  Everlasting  had  not  fix't 
His  canon  'gainst  self-slaughter. 

Hamlet:  I,  ii,  131. 

This  is  repeated  in  Cymheline :  III,  iv,  77 : 

Against  self-slaughter 
There  is  a  prohibition  so  divine 
That  cravens  my  weak  hand.' 

Again  in  Antony  and  Cleopatra:  IV,  xv,  80.  It  is 
to  be  noted  that  the  Everlasting  has  not  set  a  divine 
prohibition  against  suicide.  Wordsworth  and 
Richard  Grant  White  severally  point  out  that  there 
is  no  such  canon  against  self-slaughter  in  the  Bible. 
Yet  Ralegh  undoubtedly  held  that  it  existed,  for 
in  his  letter  to  his  wife,  quoted  above,  he  writes : 

I  know  it  is  forbidden  to  destroy  ourselves.' 

Another  equally  interesting  similarity  is  found  in 
Julius  Caesar,  III,  i,  99: 

That  we  shall  die  we  know;  'tis  but  the  time 
And  drawing  days  out,  that  men  stand  upon. 

A  somewhat  similar  thought  is  Hamlet's,  "  The 
readiness  is  all.'*     (V,  ii,  234.) 

This  is  quite  an  unusual  view — that  it  is  not  death 
itself  that  men  fear  and  about  which  they  are  con- 
cerned, but  rather  the  time  of  death.  Yet  such  was 
Ralegh's  belief.  In  his  letter  to  Cecil  (Edwards, 
Vol.  II,  page  162),  condoling  with  him  on  the  death 
of  his  wife,  he  writes : 

"  There  is  no  man  sorry  for  death  it  sealf,  butt 
only  for  the  tyme  of  death ;  every  one  knowing  that 
it  is  a  bound  never  forfeted  to  God." 

160 


MEASURE  FOR  MEASURE 

In  an  important  respect  Measure  for  Measure 
differs  from  Hamlet,  namely,  in  the  expression  of 
the  author's  attitude  to  King  James.  Self-preserva- 
tion was  the  first  law  in  Ralegh's  nature  as  in  every- 
one's. He  was  tried  November  17th,  1603,  and  was 
found  guilty  and  sentenced  to  the  horrible  death  of 
a  traitor.  In  his  letters  to  the  King  and  to  the  Lords 
of  the  Council  he  pleads  for  mercy. 

In  this  play  we  no'  longer  find  the  invectives 
against  a  King  that  are  so  characteristic  of  Hamlet. 
Instead  we  read: 

Not  the  king's  crown,  nor  the  deputed  sword. 
The  marshal's  truncheon,  nor  the  judge's  robe, 
Become  them  with  one  half  so  good  a  grace 
As  mercy  does. 

Meas.  for  Meas.:  II,  ii,  60. 

How  would  you  be. 
If  He,  which  is  the  Top  of  judgment,  should 
But  judge  you  as  you  are.    O,  think  on  that; 
And  mercy  then  will  breathe  within  your  lips. 
Like  man  new  made. 

Ibid.:  II,  ii,  77. 

The  Duke  in  this  Play  is  evidently  King  James, 
and  the  author  flatters  him.  He  is  "  a  scholar,  a 
statesman,  and  a  soldier."  (Ill,  ii,  154.)  He  is  "  a 
well-wish'd  king."  (II,  iv,  27.)  Certain  slanderous 
reports  current  regarding  James  are  rebuked: 

No  might  nor  greatness  in  mortality 
Can  censure  'scape;   back-wounding  calumny 
The  whitest  virtue  strikes.    What  king  so  strong 
Can  tie  the  gall  up  in  the  slanderous  tongue  ? 

Ihid.:  Ill,  ii,  196. 
11  161 


SHAKSPERE  AND  SIR  WALTER  RALEGH 

In  Measure  for  Measure  there  is  no  King  among 
the  Dramatis  Personce.  These  allusions,  therefore, 
are  foreign  to  the  subject  and  probably  refer  to 
King  James.  Among  the  slanders  against  him  re- 
futed by  the  author — and  correctly  refuted — is  the 
following :  "  I  never  heard  the  absent  Duke  much 
detected  for  women;  he  was  not  inclined  that  way." 
(Ill,  ii,  129.) 

In  the  Political  History  of  England,  edited  by 
Hunt  and  Poole,  Vol.  VII,  page  2,  we  read :  "  He 
(James)  was  not  sensitive  to  female  charms,  but 
any  youth  who  was  comely  and  gracious  might  hope 
to  sway  his  councils." 

This  identification  of  the  Duke  with  James  is  in- 
teresting, in  that  it  shows  that  it  was  to'  the  latter 
that  the  appeal  for  mercy  was  made.  It  was  for 
this  purpose,  I  believe,  that  the  play  was  written. 
Mercy  and  justice  constitute  the  motif  of  the 
Drama:  "Judge  not  that  ye  be  not  judged,"  is 
the  note  sounded  throughout. 

I  find  that  I  am  anticipated  in  this  by  William 
Hepworth  Dixon.  In  Her  Majesti/'s  Tower,  Vol. 
II,  page  65ff .,  there  is  confirmation  of  the  foregoing. 
Of  course  he  believes  actor  Shakspere  to  have  been 
the  author. 

"  When  Brooke  was  fallen  by  the  axe,  and  the  two 
priests  were  hung  and  quartered,  the  King  made  a 
fidgety  secret  as  to  whether  he  would  go  on  or  pause. 
Under  the  green  trees  and  by  the  limpid  streams  of 
Wilton  House  two  parties  were  contending  night  and 
day:  the  gentlemen  who  were  fumbling  the  edge  of 
Don  Juan's  gold,  defending  the  verdicts  passed  and 
clamoring  for  what  they  called  traitors'  blood ;  while 

162 


MEASURE  FOR  MEASURE 

those  who  kept  their  fingers  free  were  crying  out 
against  the  sentence  as  infamous,  the  witnesses  as 
perjured,  the  peers  as  corrupt.  The  ladies  were 
on  the  side  of  mercy ;  and  all  the  prisoners  were  wil- 
ling to  ask  for  mercy,  excepting  Grey. 

"  Pembroke  sent  to  London  for  the  Globe  come- 
dians, in  order  that  the  Teacher  of  his  age  might 
help  to  infuse  some  mirth  and  tenderness  into  the 
royal  councils ;  and  William  Shakespeare's  troop 
rode  down  to  Wilton  on  this  gracious  errand.  One 
play  was  given  before  the  Court,  and  there  is  reason 
to  believe  that  play  was  Measure  for  Measure.  The 
play  was  new ;  composed  that  very  fall,  as  the  many 
allusions  to  events  then  passing  prove — to  the 
plague,  to  the  war,  to  the  expected  peace,  to  the 
proclamation,  to  the  revival  of  obsolete  laws,  to  the 
razing  of  a  certain  class  of  houses  in  the  suburbs. 
Such  an  expression  as  '  Heaven  grant  us  its  peace, 
but  not  the  King  of  Hungary's! '  (I,  ii,  4)  might 
have  been  heard  in  every  street  that  summer;  and 
the  characters  of  Angelo  and  the  Duke  are  but 
highly-colored  and  flattering  pictures  of  Cecil  and 
the  King.  The  play  may  have  been  written  for  the 
Wilton  stage.  That  it  was  first  produced  before  a 
courtly  audience  is  clear  from  the  text;  not  only 
from  the  passage  on  ladies'  masks,  but  from  the 
many  allusions  in  it  to  James's  easy  nature  and  his 
great  dislike  to  crowds.  It  may  be  safely  gathered 
from  the  story  of  this  play  that  the  noble  lines : 

Not  the  king's  crown,  nor  the  deputed  sword. 
The  marshal's  truncheon,  nor  the  judge's  robe. 
Becomes  them  with  one  half  so  good  a  grace 
As  mercy  does:  II,  ii,  60. 

16S 


SHAKSPERE  AND  SIR  WALTER  RALEGH 

were  addressed  from  the  stage  of  Wilton  House  to 
James." 

I  feel  justified  in  presenting  the  above  as  a 
possible  confirmation  by  Dixon  wholly  unbiased ;  for 
of  course  he  held  no  theory  of  Ralegh's  authorship. 
The  thoughts  on  death,  the  prison  scenes  and  charac- 
ters drawn  from  Ralegh's  immediate  environment  at 
the  date  of  the  Play,  the  portrayal  of  James  as  the 
Duke,  the  appeals  for  mercy  and  justice  in  Ralegh's 
letters  and  in  the  Play,  and  finally  the  change  from 
the  Hamlet  invectives  to  the  flattery  of  James  and 
the  protest  against  current  slander — are  to  me  more 
than  suggestive. 

In  the  picture  drawn  by  Dixon  the  essen- 
tial facts  are  correct.  The  Court  was  tem- 
porarily installed  at  Wilton  House,  the  residence 
of  the  Earl  of  Pembroke — the  same  Earl  whose 
mother,  as  we  have  already  seen,  so  passionately 
urges  her  son  to  do  all  he  could  for  Ralegh,  as  re- 
corded by  Chamberlain  just  at  this  time  (see  his 
letter  of  November  27th,  1603).  Five  days  later, 
on  December  2d,  the  Globe  Company  of  Players, 
those  for  whom  "  Shakespeare  "  wrote,  performed 
before  King  James  at  Wilton  House  (S.  Lee,  Life  of 
Shakespeare,  page  232).  The  Play  may  have  been 
Measure  for  Measure,  as  Dixon  suggests.  It  ap- 
pears to  have  been  acted  at  Whitehall  one  year  later. 
The  date  set  for  Ralegh's  execution  was  eleven  days 
after  the  performance,  December  13th,  1603.  He 
was  reprieved,  and  held  a  prisoner  in  the  Tower 
subject  to  the  King's  pleasure.  In  all  these  events 
the  dates  fall  into  their  proper  places  chronologi- 

164 


MEASURE  FOR  MEASURE 

cally.  Nor  could  he  have  found  circumstances  more 
favorable  for  the  presentation  of  this  appeal  for 
mercy;  for  it  would  then  have  been  acted  at  the 
house  and  under  the  auspices  of  his  friends  the  Pem- 
brokes.  As  the  dedication  of  the  First  Folio  to  this 
same  patron  tells  us,  the  Earl  had  "  prosecuted  " 
the  Plays  "  and  their  author  living,  with  so  much 
favor."  It  is  not  at  all  impossible,  therefore,  that 
through  this  channel  and  at  this  time  Ralegh  may 
have  presented  his  plea  for  forgiveness.  In  this 
instance  King  James  was  the  mark  aimed  at.  As 
in  Hamlet: 

The  play's  the  thing 
Wherein  I'll  catch  the  conscience  of  the  King. 

What  English  poet  could  have  had  a  more  urgent 
reason  for  writing  this  Play  than  Ralegh  himself? 


165 


CHAPTER  XXIV 

"  Shakespeare's  "  Period  of  Gloom 

In  discussing  the  Sonnets  this  subject  has  already 
been  broached  upon.  Every  biographer  of  "  Shake- 
speare "  has  noted  the  remarkable  change  from 
Comedy  to  the  blackest  Tragedy  that  marks  the 
Dramas  written  during  the  first  six  or  seven  years 
of  the  seventeenth  century.  For  example,  Gervinus, 
in  his  Shakespeare  Commentaries,  observes  (page 
477): 

"  The  unnatural  dissolving  of  natural  bonds, 
oppression,  falsehood,  treachery,  and  ingratitude 
toward  those  to  whom  the  most  sacred  duties  should 
be  dedicated,  this  is  the  new  tragical  conception 
which  now  most  powerfully  and  profoundly  occupies 
the  poet  in  the  most  various  works  of  this  epoch 
of  his  hfe." 

Gervinus  endeavors  to  find  the  cause  of  this  in  the 
life  of  the  Stratfordian.  Referring  to  the  death  of 
his  son,  some  ten  years  before  King  Lear  was  written, 
to  the  execution  of  Essex  in  1601,  to  the  imprison- 
ment of  Southampton  which  ended  in  1603,  to  the 
lengthy  imprisonment  of  Ralegh,  "  who  certainly 
stood  high  in  Shakespeare's  esteem,  if  not  in  closer 
relationship  to  him,"  he  proceeds  {Ibid.,  page  478)  : 

"  Much  importance  cannot,  however,  be  placed 
on  these  allusions ;  those  misfortunes  too  do  not 
appear  sufficient  to  call  forth  such  an  important 
change  in  the  tone  of  his  life,  as  is  to  be  found  in 
Shakespeare's  works  after  the  year  1600." 

Dr.  A.  Bradley,  in  his  Shakespearian  Tragedy, 
states  (page  81)  : 

166 


"SHAKESPEARE'S"  PERIOD  OF  GLOOM 

"  The  existence  of  this  distinct  tragic  period,  of 
a  time  when  the  dramatist  seems  to  have  been  occu- 
pied almost  exclusively  with  deep  and  painful  prob- 
lems, has  naturally  helped  to  suggest  the  idea  that 
the  '  man  '  also,  in  these  years  of  middle  age,  from  37 
to  44,  was  heavily  burdened  in  spirit ;  that  Shake- 
speare turned  to  tragedy  not  merely  for  change, 
or  because  he  felt  it  to  be  the  greatest  form  of  drama 
and  felt  himself  equal  to'  it ;  but  also  because  the 
world  had  come  to  look  dark  and  terrible  to  him; 
and  even  that  the  railings  of  Thersites  and  the  male- 
dictions of  Timon  express  his  own  contempt  and 
hatred  of  mankind." 

Again  {Ibid.,  page  276,  foot-note) : 

*'  The  conclusions  we  may  very  tentatively  draw 
from  these  sets  of  facts  seem  to  be  as  follows : 
Shakespeare  during  these  years  was  probably  not  a 
happy  man,  and  it  is  quite  likely  that  he  felt  at 
times  an  intense  melancholy,  bitterness,  contempt, 
anger,  possibly  even  loathing  and  despair.  It  is 
quite  likely  too  that  he  used  these  experiences  of  his 
in  writing  such  plays  as  Hamlet,  Troilus  and 
Cresida,  King  Lear,  Timon."' 

Richard  Grant  White,  in  his  Studies  in  Shake- 
speare, writes   (page  211): 

"  Difficult  as  it  is  to  trace  Shakespeare  in  his 
plays,  we  can  hardly  err  in  concluding  that  there 
must  have  been  in  his  experience  of  life  and  in  the 
condition  of  his  mind  some  reason  for  his  production 
within  three  years,  and  with  no  immediate  relief,  of 
three  such  plays  as  those  in  question." 

It  is  clear  that  the  effort,  to  base  the  tragic  note 
of  these  Plays  on  any  tragic  condition  in  Shakspere's 

167 


SHAKSPERE  AND  SIR  WALTER  RALEGH 

life  is  hopeless — or  the  more  so  since  just  at  this 

period  the  Stratford  actor  was  at  the  height  of  his 

career,  rich,  prosperous,  and  flourishing. 

As    Longfellow    translates   Dante    {Inferno,    V, 

121)  : 

There  is  no  greater  sorrow 

Than  to  be  mindful  of  a  happy  time 

In  misery. 

This  Ralegh  felt,  and  tliis  I  believe  he  expressed 
in  Timon  of  Athens: 

But  myself, 
Who  had  the  world  as  my  confectionary. 
The  mouths,  the  tongues,  the  eyes  and  hearts  of  men 
At  duty,  more  than  I  could  frame  employment; 
That  numberless  upon  me  stuck,  as  leaves 
Do  on  the  oak,  have  with  one  winter's  brush 
Fell  from  their  boughs,  and  left  me  open,  bare 
For  every  storm  that  blows:  I,  to  bear  this. 
That  never  knew  but  better,  is  some  burden. 

Timon:  IV,  iii,  259. 
This  is  the  true  Dante  note. 

It  may  be  said  in  passing  that  his  reference  to 
being  left  "  open,  bare  For  every  storm  that  blows," 
may  be  an  allusion  to  his  suspected-  complicity  in  the 
gunpowder  plot  of  November  5th,  1605.  This  date 
agrees  with  the  date  of  composition  of  Timon,  as 
deduced  from  other  considerations  by  Dr.  Bradley 
in  his  ShaJcespearian  Tragedy  (pages  245-7,  443, 
447ff.). 

In  the  days  of  Ralegh's  greatness  many  of  the 
appeals  for  his  patronage  were,  of  course,  answered 
and  arranged  for  by  word  of  mouth ;  but  even  in  his 
letters  there  are  some  dozen  and  a  half  instances  of 
recommendations    by    him    in    favor    of   applicants 

168 


"SHAKESPEARE'S"  PERIOD  OF  GLOOM 

"  more  than  I  could  frame  employment,"  as  well 
as  tenders  of  good  offices  to  the  greatest  in  the  land. 
Lord  Burghley  solicited  his  intercession  with  Queen 
Elizabeth  in  behalf  of  his  son-in-law,  the  Earl  of 
Oxford,  and  Ralegh  complied.  Leicester  was  glad 
to  receive  word  from  him  that  he  was  again  Eliza- 
beth's "  Sweet  Robin."  The  Earl  of  Pembroke 
(father  of  the  patron  to  whom  the  First  Folio  was 
dedicated)  made  choice  of  Ralegh  as  the  channel  of 
his  suit  to  Her  Majesty  for  a  grant  he  desired. 

In  1589  Ralegh  wrote  to  his  cousin,  George  Carew 
(Edwards,  Life,  Vol.  II,  page  42): 

"  I  am  in  place  to  be  beleved  not  inferrior  to  any 
man,  to  plesure  or  displesure  the  greatest;  and  my 
oppinion  is  so  receved  and  beleved  as  I  can  anger 
the  best  of  them." 

As  early  as  1582,  at  the  very  outset  of  his  career 
as  a  courtier  and  favorite,  he  accompanied  the  Duke 
of  Anjou,  Elizabeth's  suitor,  to  Antwerp,  together 
with  Leicester,  Charles  Howard,  afterwards  the 
Lord  Admiral,  Sir  Philip  Sidney,  and  others ;  and, 
remaining  there  after  the  rest  had  departed,  bore  a 
personal  message  from  the  great  William,  Prince 
of  Orange,  to  the  Queen  of  England.  As  was  said 
by  a  contemporary,  he  was  bred  "  not  part,  but 
wholly  gentleman."  Hence  his  ability  to  hold  his 
own  with  the  greatest,  even  in  his  earliest  years ; 
hence  also  his  serene  bearing,  address,  manner,  and 
conversation  with  royalty  itself. 

As  Prof.  Herford  observes  in  his  edition  of  King 
John  (Introduction,  page  13):  "Shakespeare  was 
the  first  master  of  the  language  of  polished  and 
astute  debate,  of  high-bred  conversation,  of  courtly 

169 


SHAKSPERE  AND  SIR  WALTER  RALEGH 

ceremony :  "  which  is  undoubtedly  true  if  Ralegh 
were  "  Shakespeare." 

The  world  as  my  confectionary  — : 

this  is  his  description  of  his  happiest  days.  The 
Queen  bestowed  upon  liim  immense  estates  in  Ireland, 
his  fine  country  seat  at  Sherborne,  Dorsetshire,  his 
London  palace,  Durham  House,  and  many  broad 
lands  in  various  parts  of  England.  She  showered 
lucrative  grants  and  offices  upon  him.  He  gathered 
wealth  and  power.  He  was  one  of  the  leaders  among 
the  military  and  naval  men  in  England. 

His  advice  saved  the  Lord  Admiral  from  commit- 
ting a  fatal  tactical  error  in  the  Cadiz  expedition. 
Even  in  Governmental  affairs  his  opinion  was  fre- 
quently sought  by  the  Privy  Council.  He  was  a 
Member  of  Parliament  for  twenty  years. 

As  a  colonizer  he  spent  a  fortune.  "  Such  were 
the  sources  of  an  opulence,"  says  Gosse  (page  30), 
"  which  we  must  do  Ralegh  the  credit  to  say  was 
expended  not  on  debauchery  or  display,  but  in  the 
most  enlightened  efforts  to  extend  the  field  of 
English  commercial  enterprize  beyond  the  Atlantic." 

Thus  I  believe  Ralegh  speaks  of  himself  in  Timon 
(IV,  iii,  252): 

Hadst  thou,  like  us  from  our  first  swath,  proceeded 
The  sweet  degrees  that  tliis  brief  world  affords 
To  such  as  may  the  passive  drugs  of  it 
Freely  command,  thou  wouldst  have  plunged  thyself 
In  general  riot,  melted  down  thy  youth 
In  different  beds  of  lust,  and  never  learn'd 
The  icy  precepts  of  respect,  but  follow'd 
The  sugar'd  game  before  thee.     But  myself, 
Wlio  had  the  world  as  my  confectionary, 
170 


"SHAKESPEARE'S"  PERIOD  OF  GLOOM 

The  mouths,  the  tongues,  the  eyes  and  hearts  of  men 
At  duty/ 

and  so  forth,  as  already  quoted. 

It  was  from  this  liigh  position  that  Ralegh  fell. 
He  was  stripped  of  his  many  offices,  and  his  income 
reduced  to  a  figure  barely  covering  the  expense  of 
himself  and  family  in  prison.  He  who  from  his 
youth  had  been  the  most  energetic  of  men,  his  activ- 
ity in  public  and  private  affairs  carrying  him  to 
France,  Ireland,  the  Netherlands,  Cadiz,  the 
Azores,  across  the  Atlantic,  found  himself  doomed 
to  an  existence  bounded  by  the  walls  of  the  London 
Tower. 

It  was  some  time  ere  he  discovered  that  he  was 
doomed  to  a  protracted  incarceration  therein.  After 
he  had  been  there  about  a  year,  he  wrote  this  piteous 
appeal  to  one  kind  friend — to  his  one-time  friend 
Cecil — the  man  whose  influence  had  been  so  potent 
in  striking  him  down  (Edwards,  Life,  Vol.  II,  page 
314): 

"  For  the  tymes  past,  whatsoever  your  Lordship 
hath  conceived,  I  cannot  thinck  m}^  sealf  to  have 
bynn  ether  an  enemy,  or  such  a  viper,  but  that  this 
great  downfall  of  myne;  this  shame,  loss,  and  sor- 
row; may  seem  to  your  Lordship's  hart  and  sowle 
a  sufficient  punishyment  and  revendg.  And  if  ther 
bee  nothinge  of  so  many  years  love  and  familiarety 
to  lay  in  the  other  scale,  O  my  God !  how  have  my 
thoughts  betrayed  mee  in  your  Lordsliip's  nature, 
compassion,  and  piety.  For  to  dy  in  perpetuall 
prison  I  do  not  thinck  that  your  Lordship  could 
have  wished  to  your  strongest  and  most  mallicious 
enemyes." 

171 


SHAKSPERE  AND  SIR  WALTER  RALEGH 

Many  of  his  former  friends  turned  against  him, 
and  were  only  too  ready  to  profit  by  his  downfall. 
As  an  example,  the  Lord  Admiral  Nottingham,  who 
at  a  former  time  had  with  his  cloak  brushed  the  dust 
from  Ralegh's  shoes  out  of  compliment, ^^  after  hav- 
ing received  the  lucrative  Wine  Patent,  was  hard 
and  grasping  enough  to  claim  certain  arrears  that 
were  due  Ralegh  but  had  remained  unpaid  to  him. 
The  proud  courtier  who  had  formerly  been  in  posi- 
tion "  to  plesure  or  displesure  the  greatest  "  was  re- 
duced to  piteously  appealing  through  his  wife  for 
the  return  of  the  pittance  justly  owing  him. 

His  disgrace  and  humiliation  and  the  burning 
sense  of  injustice  at  liis  unjust  conviction  were  deep- 
ened by  ingratitude  such  as  this.  We  find  this  tone 
of  anguish  in  the  tragedies.  Ingratitude  is  the  dom- 
inant note  in  King  Lear.  It  is  noteworthy  that  the 
very  word  occurs  fifty  per  cent,  oftener  in  the  Plays 
following  1603  than  it  does  in  the  rest  of  the  36 
Plays  of  the  First  Folio,  Timon  of  Athens,  the 
Shaksperian  part  of  which  was  written  about  the 
same  time  as  Lear,  sounds  a  similar  note  in  its  bitter 
invectives  against  God's  creatures.  As  Porter  and 
Clarke  remark  in  their  First  Folio  edition  of  the 
Play  (Introduction,  page  xii)  : 

"  The  idea  emerging  is  the  injustice  of  Society 
and  State  to  the  exceptional  man  whose  exceptional 
traits  have  been  reaped  at  his  expense  as  long  as 

^^John  Aubrey,  Brief  Lives,  Vol.  II,  page  184:  "Old 
John  Long,  .  .  .  being  one  time  in  the  Pri\y  Garden  with 
his  master,  saw  the  earle  of  Nottingham  wipe  the  dust  from 
Sir  Walter  Ralegh's  shoes  with  his  cloake,  in  compliment." 

172 


"SHAKESPEARE'S"  PERIOD  OF  GLOOM 

convenient.  Timon,  Coriolanus,  Mark  Antony  as 
he  appears  in  Act  IV  of  Antony  and  Cleopatra,  are 
all  exceptional  men,  more  sinned  against  than  sin- 
ning, all  tripped  up  in  one  way  or  another  by  the 
rest  of  Society  for  being  superior,  in  brief,  '  all 
trashed  for  over-topping.'  " 

This  was  exactly  Ralegh's  case.  And  we  can  go 
still  further  in  tracing  biographical  references  in 
these  lines  of  Timon: 

When  Fortune  in  her  shift  and  change  of  mood 
Spurns  down  her  late  beloved,  all  his  dependants 
Which  labor'd  after  him  to  the  mountain's  top, 
Even  on  their  knees  and  hands,  let  him  slip  down. 
Not  one  accompanying  his  declining  foot. 

Timon:  I,  i,  84. 

History  does  not  record  much  regarding  these 
"  dependants,"  but  it  happens  that  we  know  that 
three  of  them  at  least  not  only  "  let  him  slip  down," 
but  used  what  influence  they  had  to  his  injury. 

William  Sanderson,  who  had  married  Ralegh's 
niece  and  was  one  of  his  deputies,  illegally  claimed 
£2000  as  due  him.  John  Meere,  his  former  bailiff, 
was  one  of  those  who  on  Ralegh's  condemnation  im- 
mediately pounced  upon  his  Sherborne  estate,  and 
was  selling  stock,  felling  timber,  and  dismantling 
the  Castle,  when  an  order  from  the  Council  pre- 
vented such  proceedings.  (Stebbing,  Life,  page 
242. )  Ralegh  said  of  Meere :  "  He  hathe  not  40 
shillings  worth  of  ground  in  the  world,  but  of  my 
gift." 

Thomas  Scott,  a  merchant,  "  one  that  I  have 
done  much  for  in  my  tyme,"  endeavored  to  defraud 
him  of  certain  sums  of  money  in  his  hands,  "  finding 

173 


SHAKSPERE  AND  SIR  WALTER  RALEGH 

mee  fitt  for  all  men  to  tread  on."     (Edwards,  Life, 
Vol.  II,  page  305.) 

But  probably  one  of  the  greatest  sources  of 
anxiety  and  worry  to  him  was  the  threatened  despoil- 
ment of  his  Sherborne  estates,  the  only  remaining 
source  of  income  that  gave  bread  to  himself  and 
family.  In  1604  a  technical  error  had  been  found 
in  the  conA^eyance  of  these  estates.  The  matter 
dragged  on  for  several  years,  and  King  James  finally 
bestowed  these  lands  on  his  favorite,  Carr.  The 
effect  of  the  threatened  taking  of  this  his  last  means 
of  livelihood  can  only  be  appreciated  by  one  who  has 
seen  starvation  and  beggary  facing  his  wife  and 
children. 

As  if  Fortune  had  not  done  enough,  however,  to 
humiliate  this  great  man,  she  added  to  his  other 
woes  the  mental  depression  and  misery  that  invaria- 
bly accompany  ill  health.  At  some  date  between 
August  20th,  1604,  and  May  4th,  1605,  Ralegh 
wrote  to  Cecil  (Edwards,  Life,  Vol.  II,  page  315); 

"  I  have  presumed  at  this  tyme  to  remember  your 
Lordsliip  of  my  miserabell  estate — daily,  in  danger 
of  death  by  the  palsey,  nightly,  of  suffocation,  by 
wasted  and  obstructed  lungs." 

Again  in  the  deepest  depression  he  writes  to 
Cecil  in  1605  (Edwards,  Life,  Vol.  II,  page  317): 

"  I  am  every  second  or  third  night  in  danger 
ether  of  suddayne  death  or  of  the  loss  of  my  lymbes 
and  sense,  being  some  tyme  two  howres  without  feel- 
ing or  motion  of  my  hand  and  whole  arm.  I  com- 
playn  not  of  it.  I  know  it  vayne,  for  there  is  none 
that  hathe  compassion  thereof." 

174 


"SHAKESPEARE'S"  PERIOD  OF  GLOOM 

Finally,  on  March  26th,  1606,  Dr.  Turner,  his 
physician,  issued  a  certificate  stating  that  "  all  his 
left  side  is  extreme  cold,  out  [i.e.,  void]  of  sense 
and  motion,  or  nmnbed ;  his  fingers  on  the  same  side 
begin  to  be  contracted  and  his  tongue,  in  some  part, 
insomuch  that  he  speaketh  weakly,  and  it  is  to  be 
feared  he  may  utterly  lose  the  use  of  it." 

He  was  thereupon  allowed  to  occupy  a  small 
room  built  in  the  adjoining  garden  and  surrounded 
by  the  lime  trees  which  he  pictures  about  the  cell 
of  Prospero : 

All  prisoners,  sir, 

In  the  line-grove  which  weather-fends  your  cell. 

The  Tempest:  V,  i,  9- 

These  dangerous  attacks  were  probably  brought 
on  by  the  cold  of  the  winter  season.  Either  the 
first  period  of  illness  in  1604,  or  the  second  in  1605, 
or  both,  may  be  referred  to  in  Timon  : 

My  long  sickness 
Of  health  and  living  now  begins  to  mend. 
And  nothing  brings  me  all  things. 

Timon:  V,  ii,  189- 

There  is  no  account  of  any  illness  of  Timon  in  the 
original  sources  of  the  Play.  These  lines  on  sick- 
ness, therefore,  seem  biographical.  In  this  respect 
they  are  akin  to  Macbeth's  (II,  iii,  55),  "  The  labor 
we  delight  in  physics  pain :  "  the  labor  of  delight 
referring  possibly  to  dramatic  composition. 

Like  Timon,  King  Lear  was  contemporaneous 
with  this  period  of  sickness,  since  the  Play  was  acted 
before  King  James  December  26th,  1606.     It  was 

175 


SHAKSPERE  AND  SIR  WALTER  RALEGH 

probably  begun  at  least  as  early  as  October  1st, 
1605,  as  shown  by  the  following  three  allusions  to 
the  eclipses  of  the  sun  and  moon : 

These  late  eclipses  in  the  sun  and  moon  portend  no 
good  to  us. — Lear:  I,  ii,  112. 

O,  these  eclipses  do  portend  these  divisions !  f  a^  sol, 
la,  mi. — I,  ii,  148. 

I  am  thinking,  brother,  of  a  prediction  I  read  this 
other  day,  what  should  follow  these  eclipses. — I,  ii,  152. 

The  eclipses  here  referred  to  were: 

(1)  The  eclipse  of  the  moon,  September  27th, 
1605,  visible  in  England. 

(2)  The  eclipse  of  the  sun,  October  12th,  1605, 
Adsible  in  England. 

These  two  eclipses  occurred  within  a  period  of 
fifteen  days.  Both  are  referred  to  three  times. 
Furthermore,  they  are  spoken  of  as  "  these  late 
eclipses." 

No  eclipses  of  the  sun  visible  in  England  occurred 
in  1603.  The  moon  was  not  eclipsed  in  1604.  There 
was  no  eclipse  of  the  sun  visible  in  Europe  in  1606. 
Therefore  King  Lear  was  doubtless  written  between 
October  12th,  1605,  if  not  earlier,  and  December 
26th,  1606,  when  it  was  acted. 

An  allusion  to  localities  Avith  which  Ralegh  was 
familiar  occurs  in  the  following  passage  of  King 
Lear: 

Goose,  if  I  had  you  upon  Sarum  plain, 
I'd  drive  ye  cackling  home  to  Camelot. 

Lear:  II,  ii,  89. 

The  commentators  have  dwelt  principally  on 
*'  Camelot  " ;  we  are  concerned  here  with  "  Sarum 

176 


"SHAKESPEARE'S"  PERIOD  OF  GLOOM 

plain."  What  is  known  as  Old  Sarum  is  just  north 
of  the  city  of  Salisbury,  Wiltshire,  and  is  some 
thirty  odd  miles  from  Ralegh's  country  seat,  Sher- 
borne. Sherborne  Castle  and  Park  were  for  a  long 
time  part  of  the  estates  of  the  See  of  Sarum,  once 
seated  at  Sherborne  and  then  removed  to  Salisbury. 
It  was  with  the  Dean  and  Chapter  of  Sarum  that 
negotiations  touching  the  conveyances,  leases,  etc., 
of  Sherborne  w^ere  conducted  by  Ralegh.  In  a  letter 
written  several  years  later  than  King  Lear  we  find 
Lady  Ralegh  mentioning  her  husband's  estate  as  a 
"  fee  farm  held  of  the  Bishop  of  Sarum." 

Camelot,  in  Somersetshire,  is  still  nearer  to  Sher- 
borne— about  ten  miles  away.  Accordingly  the 
allusion  in  the  tragedy  appears  to  refer  to  localities 
embraced  within  a  very  limited  area,  and  is  probably 
some  local  proverbial  saying  well  known  to  Ralegh 
but  now  forgotten.  He  spent  many  years  of  his  life 
in  the  immediate  vicinity  of  Old  Sarum  and  Camelot. 

Both  Timon  and  King  Lear,  as  Dr.  Bradley  ob- 
serves {^Shakespearian  Tragedy,  page  246),  "deal 
with  the  tragic  effects  of  ingratitude.  In  both  the 
victim  is  exceptionally  unsuspicious,  soft-hearted, 
and  vehement.  In  both  he  is  completely  over- 
whelmed, passing  through  fury  to  madness  in  the 
one  case,  to  suicide  in  the  other.  Famous  passages 
in  both  cases  are  curses.  The  misanthropy  of  Timon 
pours  itself  out  in  a  torrent  of  maledictions  on  the 
whole  race  of  man ;  and  these  at  once  recall,  alike  by 
their  form  and  their  substance,  the  most  powerful 
speeches  uttered  by  Lear  in  his  madness. 
The  *  pessimistic  '  strain  in  Timon  suggests  to'  many 
readers,  even  more  imperatively  than  King  Lear, 
12  177 


SHAKSPERE  AND  SIR  WALTER  RALEGH 

the  notion  that  Shakespeare  was  giving  vent  to  some 
personal  feeling,  whether  present  or  past." 

In  1605,  when  frantic  with  disgrace  and  humilia- 
tion and  crazed  by  pain  and  sickness,  Ralegh  wrote 
to  Cecil  (Edwards,  Life,  Vol.  II,  page  318)  : 

"  Thes  torments  added  to  my  desolate  life — ^re- 
ceiving nothing  but  torments  and  wher  I  should  look 
for  sume  comfort,  together  with  the  consideration 
of  my  cruell  destiny,  my  dayes  and  tymes  worn  out 
in  sorrow  and  imprisonment — is  sufficient  either 
utterly  to  distract  mee  or  to  make  mee  curss  the 
tyme  that  ever  I  was  born  into  the  world,  and  had 
a  being."     (The  italics  are  mine.) 

The  date  at  which  Ralegh  was  plunged  into  the 
deepest  gloom  by  sickness  and  suffering  was  between 
1604  and  1606  inclusive,  as  already  shown.  Pre- 
cisely at  this  period  appeared  these  tragedies. 

We  may  thus  be  able  to  give  a  rational  explana- 
tion of  "  Shakespeare's  "  period  of  gloom,  which 
hitherto  has  proved  inexplicable.  The  comments 
of  Gervinus,  Bradley,  and  White  given  above,  which 
I  have  selected  from  many  others,  are  illuminating. 
The  world  that  looked  "  so  dark  and  terrible  "  to 
the  poet,  the  "  intense  melancholy,  bitterness,  and 
despair  " — the  misanthropy  and  sense  of  injustice 
— all  of  these  find  their  exact  counterpart  in 
Ralegh's  miserable  state,  and  suggest  the  expres- 
sions of  his  personal  feelings.  The  critics  are 
eminently  correct  in  their  view  as  to  the  subjective 
nature  of  these  tragedies.  Again  I  find  no  difficulty 
in  discovering  the  man  "  Shakespeare  "  therein — if 
Ralegh's  pen-name  was  Shakespeare. 

178 


CHAPTER  XXV 

"  Shakespeare's  "  Period  of  Recovered  Serenity 

Immediately  after  TimoJh  and  King  Lear  come, 
in  the  order  of  composition,  Macbeth  (Pericles), 
Antony  and  Cleopatra,  Coriolanus.  These  Dramas 
were  written  at  about  the  following  dates: 

Macbeth 1606 

{Pericles) 1607 

Antony  and  Cleopatra  ....  1607-8 

Coriolanus 1608-9 

They  evince  a  gradual  emergence  from  the  dark 
shadow  covering  the  author's  life  that  found  such 
marked  expression  in  the  preceding  tragedies. 
Ralegh's  health  had  improved.  He  had  made  up 
his  mind  to  adapt  his  life  to  a  confinement  that  had 
earlier  contrasted  so  sharply  with  his  former  active 
career.  He  was  allowed  what  was  known  as  "  the 
freedom  of  the  Tower."  He  was  then  much  in  the 
garden  adjoining  the  Bloody  Tower,  which  was 
also  known  as  the  Garden  Tower.  He  surveyed  from 
"  Ralegh's  Walk,"  on  the  top  of  the  high  wall  near 
the  Thames,  the  stirring  life  of  the  river.  He  busied 
himself  with  scientific  occupations,  with  distillations, 
assaying,  and  such  chemical  work,  in  a  small  house 
he  used  for  these  purposes.  He  sent  for  books,  and 
had  a  good  library  at  his  disposal.  His  wife  and 
children  were  with  him,  as  were  several  attendants 
and  friends.  They,  of  course,  had  free  access  to 
the  big  world  without,  and  brought  him  the  news 
and  gossip  of  the  day.    Like  Lear,  he  could 

179 


SHAKSPERE  AND  SIR  WALTER  RALEGH 

laugh 
At  gilded  butterflies,  and  hear  poor  rogues 
Talk  of  court  news;  and  we'll  talk  with  them  too, 
Wlio  loses  and  who  wins;  who's  in,  who's  out; 
And  take  upon  's  the  mystery  of  things. 
As  if  we  were  God's  spies ;  and  we'll  wear  out. 
In  a  wall'd  prison,  packs  and  sects  of  great  ones 
That  ebb  and  flow  by  the  moon. 

Lear:  V,  iii,  12. 

Faith,  here's  an  equivocator,  that  could  swear  in 
both  the  scales  against  either  scale;  who  committed 
treason  enough  for  God's  sake,  yet  could  not  equivocate 
to  heaven. — Macbeth:  II,  iii,  9- 

This  is  undoubtedly  an  allusion  to  Henry  Garnet, 
one  of  the  leading  Jesuits  in  England,  who  was  im- 
plicated in  the  Gunpowder  Plot  of  1605,  tried  and 
convicted  March  28th,  1606,  and  executed  May  3d 
following.  His  doctrine  of  "  equivocation,"  which 
he  defended  when  confronted  with  proofs  of  perjury 
in  statements  made  by  him,  is  alluded  to  in  these 
lines.  Ralegh  was  interested  in  all  matters  con- 
nected with  the  Gunpowder  Plot,  if  for  no  other 
reason  than  that  he  had  been  obliged  to  defend 
himself  against  a  charge  of  complicity  therein.  But 
he  was  especially  interested  in  Garnet  on  account  of 
the  close  proximity  of  this  Jesuit  when  imprisoned 
in  the  first  story  rooms  of  the  Bloody  Tower,  where 
he  lay  for  nearly  three  months.  These  rooms  were 
immediately  under  the  second  story  rooms  occupied 
by  Ralegh.  (C/.  William  Hepworth  Dixon,  Her 
Majesty^ s  Tower,  Vol.  II,  pages  llff.  and  168fF.) 

180 


PERIOD  OF  RECOVERED  SERENITY 

(  PERICLES  ) 

I  am  a  maid. 
My  lord,  that  ne'er  before  invited  eyes. 
But  have  been  gazed  on  like  a  comet. 

Pericles:  V,  i,  85. 

This  is  not  improbably  a  reference  to  Halley's 
comet,  which  passed  perihelion  (its  nearest  place  to 
the  sun)  on  October  26th,  1607,  New  Style.  It  was 
observed  thirty-three  days  before  that  date  (Orago). 
Pericles  was  entered  on  the  Stationers'  Register  the 
following  spring  (May  20th,  1608),  and  published 
in  1609.  This  comet  has  returned  to  us  four  times, 
its  last  appearance  in  May,  1910,  when  many  thou- 
sands of  people  again  "  gazed  "  at  it.  Ralegh's  in- 
terest in  astronomy  is  evident  from  his  knowledge  of 
navigation :  at  one  time  he  took  Thomas  Harriot  into 
his  house  for  the  purpose  of  studying  mathematics 
with  him. 

ANTONY    AND    CLEOPATRA 

Cleopatra.  Now,  Iras,  what  think'st  thou? 

Thou,  an  Egyptian  puppet,  shalt  be  shown 
In  Rome,  as  well  as  I :  mechanic  slaves 
With    greasy   aprons,   rules    and   hammers, 

shall 
Uplift  us  to  the  view:  in  their  thick  breaths. 
Rank  of  gross  diet,  shall  we  be  enclouded. 
And  forced  to  drink  their  vapour     . 
Nay,  'tis  most  certain,  Iras:  saucy  lictors 
Will  catch  at  us  like  strumpets,  and  scald 

rhymers 
Ballad  us  out  o'  tune :  the  quick  comedians 
Extemporally  will  stage  us  and  present 
181 


SHAKSPERE  AND  SIR  WALTER  RALEGH 

Our  Alexandrian  revels;  Antony 

Shall  be  brought  drunken  forth,  and  I  shall 

see 
Some  squeaking  Cleopatra  boy  my  greatness 
I'  the  posture  of  a  whore. 

Ant.  and  Cleo.:  Y,  ii,  207. 

Antony  and  Cleopatra  is  founded  entirely  upon 
Plutarch's  Lives,  with  a  solitary  exception  of  certain 
lines  relating  to  one  of  the  minor  characters,  which 
appear  to  be  drawn  from  Appian. 

Cleopatra  is  here  referring  to  the  treatment  which 
she  would  expect  to  receive,  should  the  conquering 
C«esar  take  her  and  Antony  in  triumph  to  Rome. 
But  Plutarch  gives  no  basis  for  this.  The  utmost 
that  the  Greek  historian  has  to  say  is  this :  "  And 
furthermore,  he  (Cassar)  thought  that  if  he  could 
take  Cleopatra,  and  bring  her  alive  to  Rome,  she 
would  marvellously  beautifie  and  set  out  his 
triumphe."     (North's  Translation,  1579.) 

The  question  then  arises :  For  what  reason  did  the 
dramatist  present  this  elaborate  description  of  the 
insults  to  which  she  and  Antony  would  be  subjected 
by  the  populace?  For  it  is  to  be  noted  that  the  poet 
had  already  transcribed  into  his  text  the  lines  just 
quoted  from  Plutarch,  as  follows : 

CcBsar.  For  her  life  in  Rome 

Would  be  eternal  in  our  triumph. 

Ant.  and  Cleo.:  V,  i,  65. 

This  transcription  falls  in  its  proper  place,  follow- 
ing the  account  given  by  the  historian. 

But  as  if  the  striking  statement  quoted  at  the  head 
182 


PERIOD  OF  RECOVERED  SERENITY 

of  this  Chapter  were  not  sufficient,  we  find  him  plac- 
ing in  the  mouth  of  Antony,  addressing  Cleopatra, 
these  words: 

Vanish,  or  I  shall  give  thee  thy  deserving. 
And  blemish  Caesar's  triumph.    Let  him  take  thee. 
And  hoist  thee  up  to  the  shouting  plebeians: 
Follow  his  chariot,  like  the  greatest  spot 
Of  all  thy  sex:  most  monster-like,  be  shown 
For  poor'st  diminutives,  for  doits:  etc. 

Ant.  and  Cleo.:  IV,  xii,  32. 

And  yet  again  he  makes  Cleopatra  exclaim : 

Shall  they  hoist  me  up 
And  show  me  to  the  shouting  varletry 
Of  censuring  Rome.'' 

Ant.  and  Cleo.:  V,  ii,  55. 

Thus  the  poet  has  presented  four  times  what 
Plutarch  had  alluded  to  but  once,  and  had  alluded 
to  in  words  comparatively  colorless.  For  there  is 
nothing  in  the  original  concerning  the  "  shouting 
varletry,"  the  "  shouting  plebeians,"  the  "  mechanic 
slaves  with  thick  breath,"  the  "  scald  rhymers  " 
ballading  them,  or  "  the  quick  comedians  "  extem- 
porally  staging  them. 

Of  what  was  the  author  thinking  when  he  so  re- 
peatedly pictured  the  mobbish  insults  and  outrages 
to  which  the  hero  and  heroine  of  his  Play  might  be 
subjected.? 

I  suggest  that  a  .certain  dreadful  experience  to 
which  Ralegh  had  been  subjected,  in  November, 
1603,  was  the  basis  for  these  additions  to  the 
Plutarchian  account. 

183 


SHAKSPERE  AND  SIR  WALTER  RALEGH 

In  that  year  he  was  taken  to  Winchester  for  trial. 
I  give  Stebblings's  account  of  the  journey  {Life, 
page  208): 

"  Generally  he  encountered  none  but  looks  of 
hatred.  Precautions  had  to  be  taken  to  steal  the 
planter  of  Virginia,  the  hero  of  Cadiz,  the  wit  and 
poet,  the  splendid  gentleman,  the  lavish  patron,  from 
the  curs  of  London,  without  outrage  or  murder.  It 
was  '  hob  or  nob,'  writes  Waad  to  Cecil,  whether  or 
not  Ralegh  '  should  have  been  brought  alive  through 
such  multitudes  of  unruly  people  as  did  exclaim 
against  him.'  He  adds,  that  it  would  hardly  have 
been  believed  the  plague  was  hot  in  London  in  pres- 
ence of  such  a  mob.  '  Watchers  had  to  be  set 
through  all  the  streets,  both  in  London  and  the 
suburbs.'  '  If  one  hare-brain  fellow  among  so  great 
a  multitude  had  begun  to  set  upon  him  as  they  were 
near  to  do  it,  no  entreaty  or  means  could  have  pre- 
vailed; the  fury  and  tumult  of  the  people  was  so 
great.'  '  Tobacco-pipes,  stones,  and  mud  were,' 
wrote  Cecil's  secretary,  Mr.  Michael  Hickes,  to 
Lord  Shrewsbury  '  thrown  by  the  rabble,  both  in 
London  and  in  other  towns  on  the  road.'  Ralegh  is 
stated  to  have  scorned  these  proofs  of  the  aversion 
of  base  and  rascal  people." 

So  much  for  the  "  mechanic  slaves  "  and  "  shout- 
ing plebeians  "  of  the  Drama,  concerning  whom 
Plutarch  is  silent. 

As  for  the  "  scald  rhymers,"  I  give  two  of  their 
ballads  from  the  publications  of  the  Percy  Society 
(Vol.  XV,  Poetical  Miscellanies,  pages  13  and  14). 

Sir  Walter  was  addressed  familiarly  by  Queen 
184 


PERIOD  OF  RECOVERED  SERENITY 

Elizabeth  as  "  Water  " ;  and  Lady  Ralegh  in  her 
letters  also  refers  to  him  by  the  same  name.  Hence 
the  "  Watt  "  of  the  following  ballad: 

ON   SIR   WALTER  RALEGH 

Wilye  Watt,  Wilie  Wat, 
Wots  thou  not  and  know  thou  what, 
Looke  to  thy  forme  and  quat 
In  towne  and  citie. 

Freshe  houndes  are  on  thy  taile. 
That  will  pull  downe  thy  saile. 
And  make  thy  hart  and  quaile 
Lord  for  the  pittie. 

Lordshipp  is  flagg'd  and  fled, 
Captainshipp  newly  sped. 
Dried  is  the  hogshead's  hed, 
Wilie  Wat  wilie. 

This  stanza  establishes  the  date  of  the  ballad. 
"  Captainshipp  newly  sped  "  refers  to  James's  re- 
moval of  Ralegh  from  his  Captainship  of  the  Guard. 
"  Dried  is  the  hogshead's  hed  "  in  like  manner  is  a 
reference  to  the  withholding  of  the  income  from  his 
Wine-license  Patent.  Hence  the  date  is  the  spring 
of  1603,  before  his  indictment. 

The  anonymous  writer  continues : 

Make  the  best  of  thy  plea. 
Least  the  rest  goe  awaie. 
And  thou  brought  for  to  sale. 
Wily  beguilie. 

For  thy  skuance  and  pride. 
Thy  bloudy  minde  beside. 
And  thy  mouth  gaping  wide, 
Michievous  Machiavell. 
185 


SHAKSPERE  AND  SIR  WALTER  RALEGH 

Essex  for  vengeance  cries. 
His  bloud  upon  the  lies, 
Mountinge  above  the  skies. 

Damnable  fiend  of  hell, 

Michievous  Machivell ! 

Both  this  and  the  following  are  mild  in  their  nature 
compared  with  some  of  the  ballads  against  him  in  the 
publications  of  the  Ballad  Society  (Ballads  from 
Manuscripts,  Vol.  II,  pages  252  and  262) : 

ON   THE    SAME 

Water  thy  plaints  with  grace  divine. 

And  trust  in  God  for  aye. 
And  to  thy  Saviour  Christ  incline. 

In  Him  make  steadfast  staye. 

Raw  is  the  reason  that  doth  lie 

Within  thy  treacherous  head, 
To  say  the  soule  of  man  doth  die. 

When  that  corpse  is  dead. 

Nowe  may  you  see  the  soodaime  fall 
Of  him  that  thought  to  clime  full  hie, 

A  man  well  knowne  unto  you  all, 

Whose  state  you  see  doth  stand  Rawlie. 

Twice  did  he  take  when  time  did  serve. 

Now  is  his  time  neare  spent; 
Even  for  himselfe  he  craved  still. 

And  never  would  relent. 

For  he  hath  run  a  retchless  race, 

Which  now  hath  brought  him  to  disgrace ; 
You  that  do  see  his  soodaime  fall, 
A  warninge  be  it  to  you  all. 

Ibid.,  loc.  cit. 
186 


PERIOD  OF  RECOVERED  SERENITY 

This  ballad  is  evidently  written  in  the  latter  part 
of  1603,  after  Ralegh's  conviction. 

As  for  "  the  quick  tragedians  "  who  extemporally 
stage  him,  we  have  no  record — probably  for  the 
reason  that  such  performances  were  extemporaneous, 
and  therefore  not  printed  in  any  Play  that  has  come 
down  to  us.  An  exception  to  this,  however,  may  be 
taken,  for  there  is  reason  to  believe  that  Ben  Jonson 
brought  Ralegh  on  the  Stage  in  two  of  his  Plays. ^"^ 

^®  The  untimely  death  of  the  author  prevented  the  com- 
pletion of  his  work.  Enough  had  been  written,  however, 
to  present  clearly  his  view  regarding  the  authorship  of  the 
Sonnets  and  Plays  of  "  Shakespeare."  His  manuscript  con- 
tains no  notes  on  Coriolanus,  but  the  contemptuous  attitude 
of  its  hero  towards  the  plebeians  makes  what  has  been 
written  under  the  heading  of  Antony  and  Cleopatra  no  less 
applicable  to  this  Play.  Mr.  Pemberton  would  doubtless 
have  elaborated  the  identification  of  Prospero's  cell  with 
that  of  Ralegh's  in  the  Tower  through  the  suggestive  passage 
quoted  above  (Chapter  XXIV,  page  175),  from  The  Tempest: 

"  All  prisoners,  sir. 
In  the  line-grove  which  weather-fends  your  cell." 

The  Tempest:   X,  i,  9. 


187 


CHAPTER  XXVI 

Notes  on  Jonson's  Poetaster  ^^ 

Tucca.  I  hear  you'll  bring  me  on  the  stage,  there; 
you'll  play  me,  they  say.  I  shall  be  presented  by  a  sort 
of  copper-laced  scoundrels  of  you — Life  of  Pluto,  and 
you  stage  me,  stinkard,  your  mansions  shall  sweat  for  it, 
your  tabernacles,  varlets,  your  Globes  and  your 
Triumphs !  .  .  .  What  wilt  thou  give  me  a  week 
for  my  brace  of  beagles  here,  my  little  point-trussers  ? 
You  shall  have  them  act  among  you. 

TJie  Poetaster,  Act  III,  Scene  4. 

By  beagles  and  point-trussers  Tucca  refers  to 
the  boy  actors  of  the  Blackfriars  theatre  at  which 
The  Poetaster  was  performed.  The  Globe  theatre 
in  which  Histrio  acted  and  of  which  he  was  a  share- 
holder, was,  as  he  states,  "  on  the  other  side  of  the 
Tiber"  {i.e.,  the  Thames).  These  boys  then  de- 
claim, and  Histrio  is  eager  to  hire  them.  Tucca 
then  continues,  addressing  Histrio: 

I  have  stood  up  and  defended  you;  I,  to  gentlemen, 
when  you  have  been  said  to  prey  upon  pu'nees  and  honest 
citizens  for  socks  or  buskins;  or  when  they  have  called 
you  usurers,  or  brokers,  or  said  you  were  able  to  help 
to  a  piece  of  flesh ;  I  have  sworn  I  did  not  think  so.  Nor 
that  you  were  the  common  retreats  for  punks  decayed  in 
their  practice.    I  cannot  believe  it  of  you. 

Histrio.     Thank  you.  Captain. 

Tucca  then  points  to  the  dramatist  Dekker,  who 
is    standing   in    the   background,    and    Histrio    in- 

^  From  the  Unfinished  Manuscript. 
188 


NOTES  ON  JONSON'S  POETASTER 

forms  him  that  his  (Histrio's)  company  has  em- 
ployed Dekker  to  write  a  play  for  them.  This,  like 
all  the  other  allusions  in  The  Poetaster,  is  histori- 
cally true.  The  play  in  question  was  Satiromastix, 
written  in  the  autumn  of  1601.  Speaking  of  this 
play  Histrio  continues : 

Histrio.  O,  it  will  get  us  a  huge  deal  of  money 
(Captain)  and  we  have  need  of  it;  for  this  winter  has 
made  us  all  poorer  than  so  many  starved  snakes.  No- 
body comes  at  us. 

In  Act  IV,  Sc.  4,  one  of  the  characters  speaking 
to  Histrio,  states  that  a  letter  had  been  directed 
"  to  you  and  your  fellow-sharers."  And  in  Act  IV, 
Sc.  7,  Horace  (i.e.,  Ben  Jonson)  addresses  Histrio 
as  "  Thou  base,  unworthy  groom." 

Professor  Herbert  S.  Mallory  of  Yale  University 
edited  an  edition  of  The  Poetaster  (Yale  Studies  in 
English,  XXVII,  Henry  Holt  &  Co.,  New  York, 
1905).  To  his  valuable  Introduction  and  Notes  I 
am  indebted  for  much  information.  The  play 
swarms  with  topical  allusions,  and  many  of  the 
dramatis  personam  are  representations  on  the  stage 
of  contemporaries  of  Jonson.  Prof.  ]\Iallory  devotes 
nearly  sixty  pages  of  his  Introduction  to  the  identifi- 
cation of  these  characters.  As  to  the  prototype  of 
Histrio,  I  give  the  conclusions  derived  from  his  dis- 
cussion in  as  condensed  a  form  as  possible. 

1.  Histrio  is  an  actor. 

2.  He  is  referred  to  as  a  base,  unworthy  groom. 

3.  He  is  a  member  of  the  Globe  company  of 
actors. 

189 


SHAKSPERE  AND  SIR  WALTER  RALEGH 

4.  He  is  a  shareholder  in  that  theatre. 

5.  He  is  a  man  of  importance  in  his  company,  hav- 
ing power  to  retain  a  playwright  by  giving  earnest- 
money. 

6.  He  is  also  empowered  to  hire  boy  actors  to  act 
in  the  Globe  Theatre. 

7.  He  is  growing  rich. 

8.  And  purchasing. 

9.  He  is  a  usurer,  as  shown  by  Jonson's  statement 
in  the  1616  edition  and  by  his  addressing  Histrio  as 
"  Twenty  i'  the  hundred  "  in  the  1602  edition. 

10.  Some  of  these  players,  and  inferentially 
Shakspere  himself,  "  are  suspected  to  have  some  wit, 
as  well  as  your  poets,  both  at  drinking  and  breaking 
of  jests,  and  are  companions  for  gallants."  This 
statement  appears  in  the  1616  edition,  but  not  in 
that  of  1602.  I  shall  refer  to  it  again  when  dis- 
cussing the  testimony  of  John  Davies  of  Hereford  in 
1610. 

Professor  Mallory  is  undoubtedly  correct  in  his 
conclusion  that  Histrio  represents  a  member  of  the 
Chamberlain's  company  then  acting  at  the  Globe 
Theatre — the  company  to  which  Shakspere  be- 
longed. Professor  Penniman  of  the  University  of 
Penns^i-lvania  arrives  at  the  same  conclusion  in  his 
The  War  of  the  Theatres,  as  does  Roscoe  A.  Small 
in  his  excellent  The  Stage  Quarrel.  The  evidence 
on  this  point  is  so  strong  that  no  shadow  of  doubt 
rests  thereon.  Equally  certain  is  it  that  Histrio  is 
a  shareholder  in  the  Globe  Theatre.  It  follows, 
therefore,  that  the  person  brought  on  the  stage  as 
Histrio  was  one  of  six  actors.     For  Doctor  Wallace, 

190 


NOTES  ON  JONSON'S  POETASTER 

in  the  Century  Magazine  for  August,  1910  (p.  500), 
has  shown  that  in  1601  the  shares  of  that  theatre 
were  held  exclusively  by  the  following  six  men: 
Richard  Burbage,  Cuthbert  Burbage,  William  Shak- 
spere,  Augustine  Phillips,  Thomas  Pope,  John 
Hemmings. 

In  the  foregoing  analytical  tabulation  the  first 
seven  points  may  apply  to  any  of  these  actors.  But, 
as  respects  the  eighth  and  ninth  points,  there  was 
only  one  man  of  these  six  who  had  purchased  during 
or  prior  to  1601,  and  only  one  whom  we  know  to 
have  been  a  usurer;  and  he  was  William  Shakspere. 
This  evidence  leads,  therefore,  to  the  conclusion  that 
Ben  Jonson  scornfully  portrayed  Shakspere  as  His- 
trio  in  The  Poetaster  in  1601,  as  an  actor,  a  usurer, 
and  an  employer  of  dramatists  and  other  actors, 
and  does  not  rank  him  with  poets  or  dramatists. 

This  latter  conclusion  is  confirmed  by  the  fact 
that  it  was  in  this  same  year,  1601,  that  Manning- 
ham  told  of  the  sharp  trick  Shakspere  played  on 
Burbage  in  his  assignation  with  a  woman  at  a 
theatre,  wherein  Manningham  treats  the  whole  mat- 
ter as  an  affair  between  a  couple  of  actors,  and  gives 
us  no  more  reason  for  believing  that  he  considered 
Shakspere  as  posing  as  a  dramatist  than  he  did 
Burbage.  A  second  confirmation  is  found  in  the 
fact  that  in  this  same  year  the  Globe  actor  and 
shareholder,  Augustine  Phillips,  was  summoned  to 
give  evidence  regarding  the  performance  of  Richard 
II  in  connection  with  the  uprising  of  Essex.  But 
although  it  is  one  of  the  plays  of  the  First  Folio, 
no  reference  whatever  was  made  to  his  fellow-actor, 

191 


SHAKSPERE  AND  SIR  WALTER  RALEGH 

Shakspere,  as  being  in  any  way  connected  with  the 
avithoTship  of  Richard  II,  which  was  fomied  with 
seditious  intent. 

Jonson  was  not  alone  in  his  reference  to  the  pur- 
chase of  land.  In  The  Return  from  Parnassus,  writ- 
ten shortly  after  The  Poetaster,  the  author  puts  in 
the  mouth  of  a  poor  student  tliis  envious  reference 
to  the  prosperous  actors  : 

With  nouthing  words  that  better  wits  have  framed. 
They  purchase  lands  and  now  esquires  are  made. 

It  will  be  remembered  that  a  few  years  earlier 
Shakspere  had  purchased  the  largest  house  in  Strat- 
ford, with  two  bams  and  two  gardens.  The  words 
"  and  now  esquires  are  made,"  in  connection  with 
"  They  purchase  lands,"  is  a  direct  allusion  to 
William  Shakspere  by  the  author  of  The  Return 
from  Parnassus.  For  we  know  that  while  Shakspere 
and  his  fellows,  Phillips  and  Pope,  had  obtained 
coats-of-arms  in  1599,  Shakspere,  and  Shakspere 
only,  had  purchased  lands  prior  to  1601,  the  date  of 
this  play.  Phillips  did  not  purchase  his  place  in  the 
country  until  1604,  or  later.  And  there  is  no  record 
of  Pope  having  purchased  at  any  time. 

Thus  all  of  the  testimony  derived  from  the  Man- 
ningham  incident,  from  the  excitement  regarding 
the  Richard  II  performance,  and  from  The  Return 
from  Parnassus,  confirms  the  trustworthiness  of 
our  conclusion  derived  from  the  study  of  The 
Poetaster,  namely,  that  Ben  Jonson  represented 
W^illiam  Shakspere  as  an  actor  pure  and  simple  in 
the  character  of  Histrio  in  his  play.    It  is  worthy  of 

192 


NOTES  ON  JONSON'S  POETASTER 

note  that  these  four  sources  of  information  are  of 
the  same  date — the  year  1601. 

Especially  important  is  the  evidence  given  by 
Jonson  showing  Shakspere's  position  as  a  theatre 
manager,  by  virtue  of  which  he  was  empowered  to 
employ  dramatists,  such  as  Marston  and  Dekker, 
to  write  for  his  stage.  As  an  illustration  of  the 
humiliating  position  of  the  dramatists  and  of  their 
dependence  upon  the  theatre  men  financially,  it  may 
be  noted  that  in  1635,  papers  relating  to  the  Bur- 
bages'  dispute  regarding  ownership  of  certain 
theatre  shares,  it  is  stated  that  the  actors  "  defrayed 
all  wages  to  the  hired  men,  apparel,  poets,  lights," 
etc. 

Here  the  dramatists  (poets)  are  spoken  of  by 
Shakspere's  co-partner,  Cuthbert  Burbage,  as  be- 
ing of  no  more  consequence  in  his  estimation  than  the 
hired  men.  We  obtain  like  evidence  from  the  diary 
of  Philip  Henslowe,  the  manager  of  the  other  im- 
portant set  of  players,  the  Lord  Admirals'  company. 
Henslowe  was  also  a  pawn-broker  and  money-lender. 
He  owned  several  lodging  houses,  "  Some  of  which 
were  undoubtedly  used  for  immoral  purposes,"  says 
the  Dictionary  of  National  Biography.  He  is  de- 
nounced by  Chettle  as  a  landlord  who  was  unscrupu- 
lously harsh  to  poor  tenants.  "  Henslowe  often  lent 
the  authors  [dramatists]  small  sums  of  money  on 
account  of  promised  work,  and  invariably  kept  them 
in  humiliating  subjection  to  himself."     (D.  M.  B.) 

Henry  Pemberton,  Jr. 
13  193 


APPENDIX 

Earlier  Essays  on  the  Shakespeare  Text 
Who  Was  Hamlet's  Friend  and  King's  Jester 

YORICK?  ^ 

Everybody,  even  the  groundling,  knows  that 
Hamlet's  "  Alas  poor  Yorick  "  was  a  fellow  of  in- 
finite jest  and  of  most  excellent  fancy.  But  is  this 
the  limit  of  our  knowledge  of  him  ?  The  First  Grave- 
digger  was  better  informed ;  for  he  gives  us  two  im- 
portant pieces  of  information.  First,  he  tells  us 
of  the  title  by  which  Yorick  was  known ;  and  second, 
he  states,  definitely,  the  number  of  years  that  had 
elapsed  since  his  death.  Now,  since  knowing  the 
date  of  composition  of  the  Second  Quarto  of  Hamlet, 
we  can  ascertain  the  date  of  the  death  of  Yorick, 
let  us  assume  as  a  working  hypothesis  that  the  First 
Grave-digger  was  speaking  in  the  years  1601—1602. 
Now  the  Grave-digger  does  not  speak  of  "  Yorick," 
simply  as  "  Yorick."  On  the  contrary,  he  states 
"  This  same  skull,  sir,  was  Yorick's  skull,  the  king's 
jester;  "  and  the  last  two  words,  in  the  Quarto  of 
1604?,  begin  with  capital  letters:  "the  King's 
Jester."     Who,  then,  was  the  King's  Jester.-^ 

I  have  before  me  Dr.  Doran's  "  History  of  Court 
Fools,"  London,  1858.  On  page  132  I  find :  "  John 
Heyw^ood,  himself  a  "  King's  Jester "  and  a  poet, 
has  made,"  etc.,  etc.  On  page  142  he  states :  "  This 
play  upon  the  word  leman,   (or  "mistress")  was 

*  From  The  New  Shakspeareana  of  July,  1906. 
194 


APPENDIX 

subsequently  employed  by  Heywood,  the  "  King's 
Jester,"  to  point  a  jest  made  in  the  hearing  of  Queen 
Mary."  On  page  152:  "We  now  come  to  a  per- 
sonage of  some  celebrity,  who  seems  to'  have  been 
a  court  jester,  without  being  exactly  a  court  fool, 
I  allude  to  John  Heywood,  of  North  Mimms, 
in  Hertfordsliire,  whom  Sir  Thomas  More  in- 
troduced to  the  King  as  Sir  William  Neville  did 
Scogan,  and  whose  introduction  was  followed  by 
similar  circumstances, — his  appointment  as  "  jes- 
ter "  to'  the  sovereign.  Of  the  latter  (Heywood), 
Wharton  says  that  "  he  was  beloved  and  rewarded 
by  Henry  VHI  for  his  buffooneries,"  and,  indeed, 
that  monarch  was  so  satisfied  with  the  quips  of  his 
daughter's  favorite,  that,  as  previously  stated,  he 
named  John  Heywood  "  King's  Jester."  On  page 
155,  Dr.  Doran  states:  "With  the  reputation  of 
having  been  "  King's  Jester,"  Heywood  is  also 
known  to  us  as  a  poet,  a  dramatist,  and  a  writer  of 
epigrams."  On  page  158:  "  It  would  be  hard  to 
say  whether  Queen  Mary  laughed  or  not,  when 
"  John,  the  King's  Jester  "  either  read  to'  her,"  etc. 
And  finally,  on  page  162',  we  find: — "As  there  is 
no  doubt  of  Heywood  having  been  named  by  Mary's 
father  "  King's  Jester,"  we  may  fairly  conclude, 
etc."  There  can  be  no  doubt,  therefore,  that  John 
Heywood  bore  the  title  of  the  "  King's  Jester ;  "  that 
he  was  well  known  under  that  appellation :  and  that 
the  title  clung  to  him,  not  only  through  the  reign  of 
Henry  VIII,  but  also  through  the  reigns  of  Edward 
VI  and  of  Mary.  But  was  the  appellation  exclu- 
sively his.''     Was  there  any  other  person  known  as 

195 


APPENDIX 

such?  In  so  far  as  the  reign  of  Henry  VIII  is  con- 
cerned, the  question  can  be  answered  in  the  negative. 
It  is  entirely  unlikely  that  such  a  distinctive  title 
would  have  been  given  to  two  court  jesters  during 
the  same  reign.  The  next  sovereign  was  Edward 
VI,  who  died  when  he  was  sixteen  years  of  age. 
No  record  exists  of  there  having  been  any  jester 
under  his  short  reign  who  bore  that  title  other  than 
John  Heywood  himself.  Edward  VI  died  in  1553. 
Fi-om  that  date  until  1603,  when  James  I  ascended 
the  throne,  England  was  ruled  by  women:  Mary, 
and  Elizabeth.  Naturally,  therefore,  no  person, 
appointed  by  either  of  them,  could  have  been  known 
as  the  King's  Jester.  By  this  process  of  exclusion, 
accordingly,  it  appears  to  be  certain  that  the  person 
referred  to  as  Yorick,  was  John  Heywood.  Dr. 
Doran's  work,  already  referred  to,  and  the  Dic- 
tionary of  National  Biography,  are  the  sources  of 
information  for  the  following  sketch  of  his  life.  He 
was  born  about  the  beginning  of  the  fifteenth  cen- 
tury; in  all  probability  in  1497.  His  name  is  in- 
cluded in  a  return  of  Catholic  fugitives,  dated  29 
January,  1577,  about  which  time  he  was  found  by 
-the  royal  commissioners  to  be  nominal  tenant  of 
lands  in  Kent  and  elsewhere.  In  1587,  Thomas 
Newton,  in  his  "  Epilogue  or  Conclusion  to  Hey- 
wood*s  Works,"  speaks  of  him  as  "  dead  and  gone." 
His  death  occurred,  therefore,  sometime  be- 
tween 1577  and  1587.  The  Dictionary  of  National 
Biography  gives  the  dates  of  his  birth  and 
death  as  probably  1497,  1580.  And  the  Grave- 
digger    in    Hamlet     states     that    Yorick's     skull 

196 


APPENDIX 

"  has  lain  in  the  earth  three  and  twenty  years." 
Taking  the  date  of  composition  of  the  Second 
Quarto,  as  1601-2,  and  subtracting  23  years,  we 
have  1578-9  as  the  date  of  Yorick's  death,  which 
agrees  with  the  dates  given  above,  within  which 
Heywood  is  known  to  have  died.  Another  point  to 
be  derived  from  the  Grave-digger's  remarks,  is,  that 
his  references  to  Yorick  are  undoubtedly  biographi- 
cal in  character.  Such  a  very  definite  number  as 
twenty-three  would  not  have  been  selected  unless  the 
writer  of  the  scene  had  in  mind  some  actual  person 
who  had  died  at  the  time  stated.  Had  he  said 
"  twenty  years  "  it  would  have  been  different ;  for 
the  word  "  twenty  "  is  used  throughout  the  plays  as 
a  comprehensive  term  of  quantity,  similar  to'  the 
phrase  "  a  thousand  times  "  that  Hamlet  uses  in 
descnbing  his  childish  frolics  with  Yorick.  But  the 
Second  Quarto  (1604)  gives  the  number  in  figures 
(thus:  "23.")  So,  likewise,  do  the  Third  and 
Fourth  Quartos.  The  Fifth  Quarto  and  the  Folio, 
give  it  in  words,  ("  twenty- three  "  and  "  three  and 
twenty,"  respectively).  There  can  thus  be  no  likeli- 
hood of  a  misprint  or  typographical  error  having 
occurred.  A  direct  biographical  reference,  there- 
fore, must  be  accepted  as  having  been  made  in  the 
Second  Quarto  (written  in  1601-2),  this  Quarto  be- 
ing the  first  impression  of  the  play,  as  we  now  have 
it.  And  the  same  is  true  of  the  remarks  of  Hamlet 
regarding  Yorick,  as  will  be  shown  presently.  All 
accounts  of  Heywood  represent  him  as  having  been 
a  man  overflowing  with  wit  and  humor.     "  Hey- 

197 


APPENDIX 

wood's  spirit  of  fun,  his  humor,  and  his  readiness 
at  repartee,"  says  Dr.  Doran,  "  made  him  a  favorite 
with  More,  who  was  fond  of  spending  leisure  hours 
with  him — Previous  to  his  introduction  to  the  King, 
More  presented  him  to  the  lady  (afterwards  Queen) 
Mary,  who  found  his  merriment  so  irresistible,  that 
it  moved  even  her  rigid  muscles ;  and  her  sullen 
solemnity  was  not  proof  against  his  songs,  his 
rhymes,  his  jests."  ("A  fellow  of  infinite  jest.") 
He  seems  to  have  been  a  special  favorite  of  Queen 
Mary.  In  her  earlier  days  he  wrote  ballads  for  her, 
sometimes  making  herself  the  subject  of  them.  And 
it  is  stated  (Diet.  Nat.  Biog. )  "that  his  pleasan- 
tries were  often  acceptable  in  her  privy  chamber." 
("  Now  get  you  to  my  lady's  chamber — ^Make  her 
laugh  at  that.")  He  was,  moreover,  a  good  vocalist, 
and  no  mean  instrumental  player ;  his  songs  being 
frequently  referred  to.  He  seems  to  have  been  a 
favorite  also  in  the  mansions  and  at  the  tables  of  the 
nobility ;  and  a  specimen  of  his  wit  is  offered  us  by 
Puttenham  in  his  "  Arte  of  English  Poesie  "  who 
relates  an  anecdote,  which  I  need  not  quote,  "  on  a 
time,  at  the  Duke  of  Northumberland's  board,  where 
merry  John  Heywood  was  allowed  to  sit  at  the 
board's  end."  ("  Where  be  your  gibes  now?  "  asks 
Hamlet.  "  Your  gambols  ?  your  songs  ?  your  flashes 
of  merriment  that  were  wont  to  set  the  table  on  a 
roar.''  ")  There  can  be  no  doubt  as  to  the  biograph- 
ical character  of  these  references  in  the  drama. 
Puttenham  refers  to  him  again  as  having  come  into 
reputation  for  the  mirth  and  quickness  of  his  conceits 

198 


APPENDIX 

"  in  King  Edward  the  Sixth's  time."  In  fact,  Mary 
was  thirty-seven  years  of  age  when  Edward  VI 
died;  and,  as  she  herself  lived  only  five  years  longer, 
many  of  the  stories  regarding  Heywood's  amusing 
her  must  refer  to  the  times  of  Edward  VI. 

Of  Heywood's  life,  after  the  death  of  Mary,  we 
know  very  little.  For  the  first  dozen  years  of  the  reign 
of  Elizabeth,  the  record  is  an  entire  blank.  At  some 
time  during  this  interval,  he  went  to  Malines  to  live. 
The  suggestion  has  been  made  that  he  went  there 
to  avoid  persecution  by  Elizabeth,  as  he  was  a  Catho- 
lic. But  this  is  only  a  surmise,  and  an  unlikely  one. 
Much  is  to^f'^ited  in  a  Jester,  as  Olivia  tells  us,  in 
"  Twelfth  Night."  Besides,  Elizabeth  seems  to  have 
been  kindly  disposed  towards  him — at  any  rate  while 
she  was  Princess.  For  there  is  a  record  of  a  gratu- 
ity paid  to  him  by  her,  at  that  time.  Moreover,  Hey- 
wood's younger  son,  Jasper,  when  a  boy,  was  one 
of  the  pages  of  honor  to  the  Princess  Elizabeth.  The 
personal  element  enters  into  the  question.  It  would 
be  a  matter  of  surprise  if  the  Queen  had  allowed  any 
such  severe  action  to  be  taken  towards  her  father's 
old  jester.  Heywood's  eldest  son,  Ellis,  entered  the 
Society  of  Jesus  in  1566,  "  and  afterwards  became 
spiritual  father  and  preacher  in  the  professed  house 
of  the  society  at  Antwerp  "  (Diet.  Nat.  Biog. ). 
Antwerp  and  Malines  are  not  far  apart,  and  Hey- 
wood  may  have  gone  to^  live  there  at  that  time.  More 
positive  knowledge  as  to  this  fact,  and  also  as  to  the 
date  of  his  death,  would  obviously  be  valuable. 

Henry  Pemberton,  Jr. 

199 


APPENDIX 

As  TO  Meteors  and  Meteoric   Showers  ;   Some 

Overlooked  Items  of  Interest  in  Hamljet 

AND  Julius  Cesar  ^ 

In  the  Second  Quarto  of  Hamlet  occurs  the  well- 
known  passage  beginning,  "  I  tliink  it  be  no  other 
but  e'en  so."  (I,  i,  108-125.)  This  passage  is  not 
found  in  either  the  First  Quarto  or  the  Folio.  It 
apparently  contains  a  reference  to  two  astronomical 
events:  first,  a  meteoric  shower,  ("as  stars  with 
trains  of  fire  and  dews  of  blood,")  and  second,  an 
eclipse  of  the  moon,  (and  the  moist  star  . 
was  sick  almost  to  dooms  day  with  eclipse."  )  These 
references  to  objective  facts  have  not  received  the 
attention  or  scientific  examination  they  deserve.  It 
is  the  object  of  this  paper  to  enquire  if  there  be 
in  these  lines  allusion  to  some  ascertainable  and 
certain  phenomena  of  the  sort ;  one  that  Shakespeare 
himself  saw — or  could  have  seen,  or  heard  described 
as  a  precursor  of  fierce  events  that  Heaven  was  sup- 
posed to  demonstrate  to  the  countrymen  of  Prince 
Hamlet.  It  will  surely  be  interesting  if  we  can  show 
that  just  such  a  meteoric  display  as  the  text  would 
require  did  actually  occur  in  or  about  the  years 
1601  or  1602. 

The  well-known  showers  of  "  falling  stars  "  which 
science  knows  as  occurring  about  the  fifteenth  day 
of  November  at  periods  of  thirty-two  and  a  quarter 
years,  or  a  multiple  of  that  periodicity  are  called 
"  November  Showers."  They  are  also  called 
"  Leonids,"   because   always   appearing  tO'  diverge 

^From  The  New  Shakspeareana  of  January,  1907. 
200 


APPENDIX 

from  a  point  in  the  constellation  Leo.  The  Leonids 
differ  from  any  other  meteoric  display  in  that  they 
combine,  at  once,  two  characteristics,  peculiar  to 
them  only.  First,  the  shower  occurs  at  an  interval 
of  many  years,  and  on  a  specific  date.  And  secondly, 
the  display  is  one  of  the  most  extraordinary  phe- 
nomena ever  witnessed  by  the  eye  of  man.  The 
last  brilliant  display  of  Leonids  in  the  United  States 
occurred  on  the  early  morning  of  November  13th, 
1833.  An  elaborate  account  of  it  is  given  by  Prof. 
Olmstead  in  "  The  American  Journal  of  Science  and 
Arts,"  for  1834.  (Vol.  25,  page  363,  and  Vol.  26, 
page  132.)  It  is  a  long  paper.  I  can  give  but 
a  few  extracts.  Prof.  Olmstead  states :  "  Probably 
no  celestial  phenomenon  has  ever  occurred  in  this 
country  which  was  viewed  with  so  much  admiration 
and  delight  by  one  class  of  spectators,  or  with  so 
much  astonishment  and  fear  by  another  class." 
"  To  furnish  some  idea  of  the  phenomenon,  the 
reader  may  imagine  a  constant  succession  of  fire 
balls,  resembling  sky-rockets,  radiating  in  all  direc- 
tions from  a  point  in  the  heavens, — some  were  larger 
than  Jupiter  or  Venus.  The  flashes  of  light, 
although  less  intense  than  lightning,  were  so  bright 
as  to  awaken  people  in  their  beds. —  I  was  sur- 
prised at  seeing  innumerable  meteors — falling  about 
half  as  thick  as  the  flakes  of  snow  in  one  of  our  com- 
mon snowfalls. —  Many  persons  thought  a  shower  of 
fire  was  falling,  and  became  exceedingly  alarmed. — 
It  could  only  be  compared  to  one  gi'and  and  con- 
tinual discharge  of  fireworks,  occupying  the  whole 
visible  heavens."     There  is  much  more  to  the  same 

201 


APPENDIX 

effect,  not  necessary  to  quote.  But  I  shall  give  some 
extracts  illustrative  of,  first,  the  line  quoted  above 
from  Hamlet,  and  secondly,  of  several  remarkable 
references  in  Julius  Ccesar  to  the  same  display. 
Julius  Ccesar  first  appeared  in  print  in  1623.  I 
am  not  concerned,  here,  in  establishing  the  date  of 
its  composition.  But  I  shall  present  extracts  from 
both  tragedies  that  agree  exactly  with  Olmstead's 
descriptions.  In  Hamlet  the  dramatist  speaks  of 
the  "  stars  with  trains  of  fire  and  dews  of  blood !  " 
The  following  are  from  Olmstead :  "  The  trains  left 
by  the  exploding  balls  were  usually  of  a  yellowish 
hue,  but  sometimes  reddish"  {I.e.,  page  384) — 
"  The  balls,  as  they  travelled  down  the  vault,  usually 
left  after  them* a  vivid  streak  of  light  "  (page  365) 
— "  filled  the  whole  heavens  with  beautiful,  brilliant 
streams  of  light  "  (page  371) — trains — continuing 
from  3  to  7  or  8  seconds,  and  sprinkling  the  heavens 
with  long,  bright  dashes  of  light  resembling  in  their 
form  the  marks  made  on  the  window  by  the  first 
drops  of  a  shower  driven  against  the  glass  ("  dews 
of  blood")  (page  376).  In  Julius  Ccesar  we  find 
still  closer  resemblances.  These  may  be  classed 
under  five  heads.  First,  general  descriptions  of  the 
phenomena  are  given : —  "  But  never  till  to-night, 
never  till  now  Did  I  go  through  a  tempest  dropping 
fire"  (I,  iii,  9)  " — for  now,  this  fearful  night 
There  is  no  stir  or  walking  in  the  streets ;  And  the 
complexion  of  the  element  In  favour's  like  the  work 
we  have  in  hand,  Most  bloody,  fiery,  and  most  terri- 
ble." (I,  iii,  126.)  "  Fierce,  fiery  warriors  fought 
upon  the  clouds.  In  ranks  and  squadrons  and  right 

202 


APPENDIX 

form  of  war,  Which  drizzled  blood  upon  the  Capitol. 
(II,  ii,  19.)  "The  heavens  themselves  blaze  forth 
the  death  of  Princes."    (II,  ii,  31.) 

The  second  interesting  point  in  the  description 
given  in  this  drama,  is  to  the  effect  that  there  was  an 
audible  sound  produced  by  the  meteors  in  their 
passage  through  the  atmosphere : —  "  The  exhala- 
tions whizzing  in  the  air."  (II,  i,  44.)  Compare 
Olmstead:  After  stating  that  most  of  the  meteors 
were  noiseless,  we  have :  "  One  was  accompanied  by 
the  noise  like  the  rushing  of  a  sky-rocket " —  "  A 
hissing  noise  is  said  to  have  been  heard  after  this 
explosion  " — ^"  like  the  rush  of  a  distant  sky-rocket  " 
(page  392).  Thirdly,  as  to  the  brilliancy  of  the 
light  produced  by  the  meteors : — ■  "  The  exhala- 
tions whizzing  in  the  air  Give  so  much  light  that  I 
may  read  by  them.  {Opens  the  letter  and  readsy 
(II,  i,  44.)  Compare  Olmstead:—  "  Their  bril- 
liancy was  so  great  that  we  could  at  times  read 
common  print  without  much  difficulty  "  (page  382). 
Fourthly,  as  to  the  hour  of  the  morning,  at  which 
the  display  was  witnessed: — 

"  Brutus.     Peace  !  count  the  clock. 

Cassius.  The  clock  hath  stricken  three."  (II,  i, 
192.)  Compare  Olmstead: —  "The  meteors — 
were  most  brilliant  from  two  to  five  (and)  arrived 
at  their  maximum,  in  many  places,  about  four 
o'clock  "  (page  386).  The  fifth  point  of  similitude 
is  remarkable: — 

"Decius.     Here  lies  the  east:  doth  not  the  day 
break  here.'^ 

Casca.     No. 

203 


APPENDIX 

Cirma.     O,  pardon,  sir,  it  doth ;  and  yon  gray 

lines 
That  fret  the  clouds  are  messengers  of  day. 
Casca.     You  shall  confess  that  you  are  both  de- 
ceived. 
Here,  as  I  point  my  sword,  the  sun  arises, 
Which  is  a  great  way  growing  on  the  south 
Weighing  the  youthful  season  of  the  year. 
Some  two  months  hence  up  higher  towards  the 

north. 
He  first  presents  his  fire ;  and  the  high  east 
Stands,  as  the  Capitol,  directly  here." 

n,  i,  101. 

I  think  the  suggestion  made  by  some  commenta- 
tors on  this  passage  that  the  conversation,  given 
above,  expresses  some  confusion  in  the  minds  of  the 
speakers  due  to  Caesar's  change  in  the  calendar  two 
years  previously,  is  an  error.  Had  Decius  had  in 
mind  the  old  calendar,  he  never  would  have  pointed 
to  the  east  as  being  the  point  of  sunrise.  For  in 
the  old,  incorrect  calendar,  the  ides  of  March 
occurred  in  the  midwinter,  at  about  what  is  now 
our  Christmas  time.  And  the  sun  rose  then  well  to 
the  southeast.  The  reference  to  "  the  youthful 
season  of  year  "  suits  neither  the  date  of  the  meteor 
shower  nor  the  date  of  Caesar's  death.  At  the 
beginning  of  the  conversation,  Decius,  pointing  to 
the  east  thinks  it  is  daybreak.  ("  Doth  not  the  day 
break  here? ")  Casca  answers  in  the  negative. 
Whereupon  Cinna  states  that  the  light  on  the  clouds 
indicates  the  approach  of  day.  Casca  again  contra- 
dicts them,  stating  that  they  "  are  both  deceived." 

204 


APPENDIX 

Then,  pointing  with  his  sword  towards  the  south- 
east, he  states  that  "  Here,  as  I  point  my  sword,  the 
sun  rises." 

What,  then,  was  the  light  in  the  east  that 
attracted  Cinna's  attention  and  misled  him  to  such 
an  extent  as  to  make  him  believe  that  daybreak  was 
at  hand,  in  the  month  of  March,  before  the  clock 
had  "stricken  three?"  Before  I  answer  this  ques- 
tion let  me  draw  attention  to  one  or  two  points. 
The  date  of  the  action  of  the  play,  in  these 
scenes,  is  the  early  morning  of  the  day  upon 
which  Julius  Caesar  was  assassinated,  viz.,  the 
fifteenth  of  March  B.C.  44  ("  the  ides  of  March  "). 
Five  days  later,  on  March  20th,  the  sun  "  crosses 
the  line,"  and  rises  in  the  exact  east  to  an 
observer  upon  any  part  of  the  habitable  globe.  But 
even  on  March  15th  the  point  on  the  horizon  at 
which  the  sun  rises,  is  still,  for  all  practical  purposes, 
due  east.  To  be  exact,  it  is  three  degrees  south 
of  the  east  point.  Casca,  in  stating  that  they  are 
both  deceived,  takes  particular  care  to'  point  to  that 
part  of  the  horizon  "  which  is  a  great  way  growing 
on  the  south ;  "  that  is  to  say,  well  towards  the 
southeast.  This  shows,  first,  that,  the  author  of  the 
play  overlooked  the  fact  that  the  date  of  the  action 
was  about  that  of  the  spring  equinox ;  secondly,  that 
any  meteoric  showers  occurring  between  March  20th 
and  September  22d  must  be  excluded  from  consider- 
ation, because  during  that  interval  the  sun  rises 
always  north  of  the  east  point  and  not  south  of  it. 
Thus  we  know  that  the  August  meteors  are  not 
referred  to  in  the  numerous  examples  I  have  quoted. 

205 


APPENDIX 

And  thirdly,  Casca's  words  prove  that  the  strange 
light  in  the  east  was  not  the  light  of  approaching 
sunrise.     What,  then,  was  this  peculiar  light? 

The  answer  to  the  question  has  been  buried  for 
nearly  three  quarters  of  a  century  in  the  dusty  vol- 
umes of  the  American  Journal  of  Science,  and  this 
answer  proves  that  the  author  of  Julius  Caesar  was 
in  possession  of  a  fact  relating  to  a  meteoric  shower, 
about  which,  I  am  safe  in  saying,  even  many  profes- 
sional astronomers  of  to-day  are  uninformed.  Let 
me  quote  from  Prof.  Olmstead's  article.  "  An  aurora 
or  boreal  light,  was  seen  during  the  meteoric  shower, 
a  little  north  of  east.  The  lower  edge  of  this  bank 
of  light  appeared  to  be  several  degrees  above  the 
horizon  " —  "  Mr.  Palmer  says  that  "  An  auroral 
light,  resembling  daybreak,  appeared  constantly  in 
the  east  from  the  time  when  his  observations  com- 
menced "  (2  o'clock  A.M.).  Mr.  Palmer  stated  to 
the  writer  that  this  light  was  so  bright,  and  so  much 
resembled  the  dawn,  that  a  member  of  liis  family  got 
his  pail  to  milk  the  cows,  supposing  it  to  be  day- 
break, but  found  it  was  only  4  o'clock."  {Am.  Jour, 
of  Sci.,  Vol.  26,  page  168.)  The  references  in 
Hamlet  and  Julius  Casar  it  seems  to'  me  refer 
to  one  and  the  same  meteoric  shower.  (Horatio 
refers  to  "  the  mightiest  Julius.") 

It  is  to  Prof.  H.  A.  Newton  of  Yale  College,  that 
we  owe  the  earliest  investigation  of  the  Leonid 
showers.  It  is  important  to  note  that  Prof.  Newton's 
information  regarding  this  particular  shower  was 
derived  from  Chinese  annals,  and  from  Chinese 
annals   only.      I   can   find   no   testimony   whatever, 

206 


APPENDIX 

regarding  it  from  European  sources.  And  I  am 
led  to  the  remarkable  conclusion  that  these  two  plays 
furnish  evidence  of  a  fact  hitherto  unknown  to  men 
of  science :  that  it  is  likely  that  such  a  meteoric 
shower  was  seen  in  Europe  about  the  beginning  of 
the  seventeenth  century. 

In  his  paper  in  The  American  Jourrial  of  Science 
and  Arts  for  1864  (Second  Series,  Vol.  xxxvii,  page 
377,  Vol.  xxxviii,  page  53)  he  gives  valuable  Tables, 
from  which  I  extract  the  following : 


TABLE    OF    NOVEMBER    METEOR 

SHOWERS 

Year 

Day  and  Hour 

DiflF. 

No. 

A.D. 

d.   h. 

in  years 

1 

902 

Oct. 

12.17 

+  .50 

2 

931' 

" 

14.10 

—3.75 

3 

9S4> 

" 

13.17 

—  .75 

4> 

1002 

" 

14.10 

+  .75 

5 

1101 

" 

16.17 

0 

6 

1202 

" 

18.14 

+  1.25 

7 

1366 

" 

22.17 

— 1.00 

8 

1533 

<< 

24.14 

—  .25 

9 

1602 

<< 

27.10 

+2.25 

10 

1698 

Nov 

.    8.17 

—1.50 

11 

1799 

" 

11.21 

—  .25 

12 

1832 

" 

12.16 

—  .50 

13 

1833 

*' 

12.22 

+   .50 

(The  jump  between  showers  9  and  10  is  due  prin- 
cipally to  the  change  from  old  to  new  style  in  the 
calendar  reckoning.) 

The  figures  in  column  four  represent  the  differ- 
ence, in  years,  between  the  actual  date  of  each 
shower,   and  the  average  date   on  which  it  might 

207 


APPENDIX 

have  been  expected  to  occur.  TKus,  the  shower 
No-.  9  in  the  table,  which  took  place  October  27th, 
1602  (O.  S.),  and  which  is  probably  the  shower 
referred  to  in  the  dramas,  was  2^  years  later  than 
the  date  calculated  from  the  average  of  the  entire 
list.  The  description  of  it,  as  given  by  Newton  {I.e. 
37,  page  384)  is  taken  from  Chinese  records. 

"  A.D.,  1602.  Period  WANG-LI,  thirtieth  year, 
ninth  month,  18th  day  of  the  Cycle  (October  27th, 
O.  S.).  Several  hundred  small  stars  were  seen, 
which  parted  from  each  other,  and  came  again." 
A  second  account  is  as  follows : —  "  During  the 
night,  at  the  fifth  hour,  a  star  appeared  in  the  N.  E. 
as  large  as  a  hen's  egg,  and  of  a  bluish  white  color. 
It  left  a  bright  train.  From  N.  E.  of  the  stars 
Hia-tai  (two  stars  in  the  Great  Bear)  it  went  nearly 
to  due  west.  In  the  south  appeared  another  star  as 
large  as  a  pestle  for  pounding  grain.  Its  color 
was  whitish  blue,  its  train  gleamed,  and  its  light 
illumined  the  earth.  It  appeared  southwest  of 
TSAN  (the  belt  and  quadrilateral  of  Orion),  and 
passed  to  the  group  of  four  stars  in  Eridanus.  After 
this  there  were  two  small  stars  which  followed  the 
large  one,  and  still  later  there  were  several  hundred 
shooting  stars,  great  and  small,  mixed  and  confused, 
which  followed  in  the  same  direction."  Prof.  New- 
ton points  out  that  the  minor  displays,  Nos,  2,  9, 
and  10,  indicate  "  that  unusual  numbers  of  shooting 
stars,  sufficient  to  attract  attention,  ma}''  be  seen 
through  a  period  of  five  or  six  years,  at  least." 
During  a  period  of  2%  to  3  years  on  either  side  of 
the  average  date,  the  display  may  continue,  although 

208 


APPENDIX 

with  much  diminished  brilliancy.  And  he  informs 
us,  as  the  Chinese  report  indicates,  that  the  shower 
of  October  27th,  1602,  was  a  minor  display.  This 
is  easily  understood,  when  we  remember  that  the 
meteors,  travelling  around  the  sun  in  a  period  of 
32^/4  years,  in  an  elliptical  orbit,  as  far  out  as  the 
orbit  of  the  planet  Uranus ;  are  not  composed  of  a 
compact,  round  ball  of  meteoric  bodies,  but  are  some- 
what strung  out  into  a  line  gradually  diminishing 
in  density,  which  requires  at  least  a  year's  time  to 
pass  the  earth's  orbit.  Therefore,  if  the  earth,  in 
any  given  year,  passes  through  the  main  body  of  the 
meteors,  we  have  a  brilliant  shower.  Next  year  the 
display  is  much  inferior.  Thus  we  find,  as  a  matter 
of  fact,  that  the  meteoric  display  of  November  13th, 
1834,  was  a  tame  one,  compared  with  the  remarkable 
shower  of  fire  that  fell  for  hours  in  November,  1833. 
It  is  only  proper  to  observe,  therefore,  that  the  year 
1601  is  as  likely  to  have  been  the  year  of  the  brilliant 
shower  in  Europe  as  the  year  1602.  This  statement 
is  based  upon  the  fact — as  column  four  of  the  table 
shows — that  the  shower  No.  9  was  later  than  the 
average  date. 

But  there  was  also  an  Eclipse  of  the  Moon. 

— "  and  the  moist  star 
Upon  whose  influence  Neptune's  empire  stands 
Was  sick  almost  to  doomsday  with  eclipse." 

Hamlet:  I,  i,  118. 

Eclipses  of  the  moon,  and  more  especially  those 
of  the  sun,  have  been  used  frequently  by  historians 
as  a  means  of  determining  the  date  of  certain  known 
14  209 


APPENDIX 

events  in  by-gone  ages.  Thus,  an  eclipse  has  been 
reported  as  having  occurred  at  the  time  of  a  certain 
battle,  or  at  the  death  of  a  certain  king.  The 
theory  of  the  moon's  motions,  in  her  orbit  around  the 
earth,  is  now  so  well  known  that  the  date  of  such  an 
event  can  be  established  with  certainty,  if  the  de- 
scription given  by  the  old  writer  is  clear  and  exact. 
Thus  the  moon  serves  as  the  hour  hand  of  a  gigantic 
clock.  But,  instead  of  revolving  twice  in  24  hours, 
she  makes  about  twelve  and  one-third  revolutions 
through  the  sky  in  the  course  of  a  year.  At  exactly 
known  dates  in  every  year,  the  moon  passes  between 
the  earth  and  the  sun ;  and  in  such  a  case  a  solar 
eclipse  occurs.  In  like  manner,  almost  every  year, 
she  passes  through  the  earth's  shadow ;  and  then  we 
have  a  lunar  eclipse.  And  Horatio  informs  us,  in 
the  lines  referred  to,  that  such  an  eclipse  was  one  of 
the  "  precurse  of  fierce  events  "  that  heaven  and 
earth  had  demonstrated  unto  his  countrymen.  Now 
it  seems  that  an  eclipse  of  the  moon  did  take  place 
during  the  early  evening  of  December  9th,  1601, 
New  Style ;  and  that  the  entire  eclipse,  lasting  over 
three  hours,  was  visible  in  London.  There  are  two 
authorities  that  can  be  consulted  in  such  an  inquiry : 
"  L'Art  de  Verifier  les  Dates,"  Paris,  1818,  Vol.  I 
of  Part  II ;  and  von  Oppolzer's  "  Canon  der  Finster- 
nisse,"  Vienna,  1887.  See  also  a  paper  by  the  Rev. 
J.  Johnson  on  this  particular  eclipse,  in  Monthly 
Notices  of  the  Royal  Astronomical  Society,  Vol.  33, 
page  405.  From  these — and  other  sources, — I 
gather  the  following  information.  Dec.  9th,  1601 
(New  Style  was  Sunday,  Nov.  29th.     Old  Style). 

210 


APPENDIX 

The  sun  set  on  that  day,  in  London,  at  3.49  p.m. 
The  full  moon  was  just  clear  of  the  horizon.  Half 
an  hour  later  she  began  to  enter  the  earth's  shadow. 
As  she  plunged  deeper  and  deeper  into  it,  the  eclipse 
reached  its  maximum  at  a  few  minutes  before  six 
o'clock.  All  twilight  had  disappeared,  and  the  spec- 
tacle, seen  against  the  dark,  eastern  sky,  must  have 
been  a  beautiful  one.  The  moon,  then  only  about 
two  hours  high  in  the  heavens,  was  thus  immediately 
in  front  of  the  observer.  It  is  important  to^  note  that 
the  entire  face  of  the  moon  was  not  eclipsed.  Only 
about  eleven  digits  passed  into  the  shadow.  A  digit 
is  one-twelfth  of  the  moon's  diameter ;  ,so'  that  eleven 
digits  correspond  to  eleven-twelfths  of  her  diameter. 
A  fine,  brilliant  crescent  of  light  was  therefore  left 
on  one  side  of  the  moon.  In  other  words,  the  eclipse 
was  not  a  total  one ;  on  the  contrary,  she  "  was  sick 
almost  to'  doomsday  with  eclipse."  And,  thus, 
Horatio  and  von  Oppolzer  agree  exactly  in  their 
accounts  of  the  phenomena.  An  examination  of 
lunar  eclipses  from  1598  to'  1604,  inclusive,  gives  the 
following  results :  Omitting  eclipses  invisible  in 
Europe,  and  omitting  those  in  which  a  small  fraction 
only  of  the  moon  was  eclipsed  (two  or  three  digits), 
we  have  left  for  consideration  five  eclipses,  as 
follows : — 

(1)  February  21st,  1598.  This  eclipse,  of 
11  8-10  digits,  began  about  four  hours  after  mid- 
night and  ended  at  sunrise.  A  reference  to'  an 
eclipse  occurring  at  such  an  hour  of  the  night,  as  a 
"  harbinger,'*  would  not  be  understood ;  for  very  few 
people  could  have  seen  it.     (2)  The  same  may  be 

211 


APPENDIX 

said  of  the  eclipse  of  February  10th,  1599.  This 
was  a  total  eclipse,  the  middle  of  which  was  at  5.11 
A.M.  It  was,  therefore,  another  early  morning 
eclipse.  (3)  August  16th,  1598.  Total  eclipse; 
middle  of  eclipse  6.47  p.m.  The  moon  rose  after 
7  o'clock  in  London,  and  nearly  two-thirds  of  the 
eclipse  had  taken  place  while  the  moon  was  below  the 
horizon.  (4)  June  4th,  1602.  Total  eclipse.  Mid- 
dle of  eclipse  6.18  p.m.  Here  again  the  moon  did 
not  rise  until  late  (after  8  p.m.)  when  five-sixths  of 
the  eclipse  had  taken  place.  Both  of  these  last 
eclipses  were  total,  and  therefore  do  not  correspond 
to  the  description  given.  (5)  1603,  May  24th,  Mid- 
dle of  eclipse  about  midnight.  As  only  7  4-10  digits 
were  eclipsed,  it,  likewise,  does  not  correspond  to 
the  description.  Only  the  last  two  eclipses  occurred 
in  the  seventeenth  century. 

A  word  may  be  said  upon  the  "  Disasters  in  the 
Sun."  It  has  been  suggested  that  these  words  refer 
to  an  eclipse  of  the  sun.  It  may,  therefore,  be  of 
interest  to  state  that  there  was  an  annular  eclipse  of 
the  sun  on  December  24th,  1601,  New  Style,  about  a 
fortnight  after  the  lunar  eclipse  just  described.  The 
middle  of  this  solar  eclipse  occurred  one  hour  after 
midday.  The  eclipse  "  was  annular  right  across 
England."  (Minth,  Not.  Roy.  Astr.  Socy.,  40, 
436.) 

I  have  discovered  several  other  allusions  in  Hamlet 
to  historical  data  of  the  same  period.  These  allu- 
sions, although  in  a  Danish  setting,  show,  also,  how 
very  English — how  very  Elizabethan — was  the  point 
of  view  from  which  these  abstracts  and  brief  chron- 
icles of  the  time  were  written. 

212 


APPENDIX 

I  have  also  obtained  evidence  showing  that  it 
was  a  matter  of  general  comment  in  England, 
during  the  latter  part  of  the  year,  1601,  that 
it  had  been  a  season  of  strange  and  un- 
usual events.  In  the  "  State  Papers,  Domestic 
Series,  of  the  Reign  of  Elizabeth,"  1601-1603, 
under  date  of  December  29th,  1601 :  Dudley  Carle- 
ton,  writing  from  London  to  John  Chamberlain  at 
Knebworth,  states :  "  The  eclipse  you  left  us  with 
was  seconded  with  thunder,  lightning,  earthquakes 
and  continued  tempest."  Again,  in  Chamberlain's 
Letters  (Camden  Society),  dated  Knebworth,  Janu- 
ary 10th,  1601-2:  "  We  passed  the  Christmas  with 
the  ordinarie  courses,  only  one  thing  was  very 
straunge,  and  extraordinarie  in  this  countrie,  that 
was  a  nest  of  young  ravens  which  may  be  added  to 
the  wonders  of  this  season."  These  allusions  to 
events  in  the  latter  part  of  1601,  are  in  accord  with 
the  statement  made  by  Horatio,  in  Hamlet  I,  i,  121 : 
"  And  even  the  like  precurse  of  fierce  events. 
Have  heaven  and  earth  together  demonstrated  unto 
our  climatures  and  countrymen."  H.  P.,  Jr. 

The  "  Star  That's  Westward  from  the  Pole  "  ^ 
further  explanation  of  astronomical  allusions 

Last  night  of  all. 

When  yond  same  star  that's  westward  from  the  pole 
Has  made  his  course  to  illumine  that  part  of  heaven 
Where  now  it  burns,  Marcellus  and  myself. 

The  bell  then  beating  one, 

Hamlet:  I,  i,  S6. 
In  this  article  I  present  evidence  showing,   (1) 

*  From  The  Neio  Shakspeareana  of  January,  1908, 
213 


APPENDIX 

that  the  star  referred  to  in  the  foregoing  lines  can 
be  identified ;  ( 2 )  that  the  time  of  year  in  which  the 
star  was  in  the  position  stated  can  be  determined; 
and  (3)  that  this  time  of  year  corroborates  the 
testimony  already  given  in  former  issues  of  New 
Shakspeareana.  Moreover,  the  allusion  furnishes 
an  interesting  example  of  the  manner  in  which 
the  movements  of  the  heavenly  bodies  serve  as 
a  guide  in  determining  questions  in  chronology. 
In  order  to  make  the  subject  intelligible  to 
readers  who  may  not  happen  to'  be  familiar  with 
astronomical  matters,  it  is  necessary  to  say  a 
few  words  upon  the  dual  motion  of  the  stars  in  the 
sky.  Upon  examining  the  northern  heavens  on  any 
clear  night,  at  intervals  of  a  few  hours,  it  will  be 
found  that  the  entire  sky  makes  an  apparent  revo- 
lution around  a  point  near  the  north  star,  and  that 
this  revolution  is  in  a  dirction  the  opposite  to  that 
in  which  the  hands  of  a  clock  move.  Thus,  the  stars 
above  the  pole  move  to  the  left ;  those  to  the  left  of 
the  pole  move  downwards,  and  so  on.  Tliis  well  known 
motion  is  only  apparent,  however,  and  is  due  to  the 
earth's  rotation  on  its  axis.  At  the  expiration  of 
twenty-four  hours  the  stars  will  have  completed  the 
circle,  and  will  have  returned  to  about  the  same  posi- 
tion they  held  when  first  observed.  But  they  do  not 
return  to  exactly  the  same  position :  and  this  brings 
us  to  the  consideration  of  the  second  apparent  motion 
of  the  heavens,  which,  in  this  instance,  is  caused  by 
the  revolution  of  the  earth  around  the  sun. 

Let  us  suppose  an  observer  to  begin  his  obser- 
vations at  a  certain  definite  hour  and  date — let  us 

214 


APPENDIX 

say  at  ten  o*clock  p.m.  on  the  first  day  of  January. 
Let  the  position  from  which  he  makes  his  observations 
be  fixed  and  unchanged.  And  let  him  determine  the 
exact  position  of  any  particular  star  by  referring  it 
to  some  terrestrial  object, — for  example,  the  gable 
of  a  house.  It  will  be  more  convenient  if  we  assume 
that  the  star  in  question  is  immediately  over  the 
north  star,  and  that  it,  therefore,  occupies  a  position 
corresponding  to  the  Figure  XII  of  a  clock  dial. 
On  the  next  evening,  on  January  second,  he  will  find 
that  the  star  has  returned  to  its  place  by  the  house 
gable,  not  at  ten  p.m.  but  at  about  four  minutes  be- 
fore ten  o'clock.  To  be  more  exact,  it  will  be  there 
at  three  minutes  and  fifty-six  seconds  before  ten. 
But  let  us  use  round  numbers  and  call  the  interval 
four  minutes.  At  exactly  ten  o'clock  on  January 
second,  therefore,  the  star  will  have  arrived  at  and 
passed,  to  a  slight  degree,  the  gable,  or  the  Figure 
XII.  Similarly,  oil  January  the  third  the  star 
will  be  in  place  at  eight  minutes  before  ten  and  at 
ten  o'clock  will  be  still  further  beyond  the  Figure 
XII;  and  on  January  fifteenth  it  will  be  in  its  posi- 
tion at  one  hour  before  ten,  or  at  nine  o'clock ;  and  on 
February  the  first  will  be  there  at  eight  p.m.  ;  and 
at  ten  o'clock  February  first  will  be  found  tO'  have 
advanced  during  the  month  to  such  an  extent  that 
it  now  occupies  the  position  corresponding  to  the 
Figure  XI  on  the  dial.  In  like  manner,  after  an 
interval  of  three  months,  on  April  first,  at  ten  p.m. 
the  star  will  be  at  the  Figure  IX  or  to  the  left  of 
the  pole;  after  six  months  at  the  Figure  VI,. or 
under  the  pole;  after  nine  months  at  ///;  and  on 

215 


APPENDIX 

the  following  January  first,  it  will  have  completed 
its  circle  and  will  be  found  once  more  at  its  old  posi- 
tion by  the  house  gable,  or  at  Figure  XII — all 
observations  being  made  at  ten  o'clock  p.m.  It  fol- 
lows, from  all  of  this,  that  any  particular  star,  at 
a  given  hour,  can  occupy  a  certain  position  on  one 
day,  and  on  one  day  only  during  the  year.  There- 
fore, if  we  know  the  star  referred  to,  if  we  know  its 
position  in  the  sky,  and  if  we  know  the  hour,  we  shall 
be  able  to  calculate  the  date ;  or,  rather,  the  time  of 
year  to  wliich  the  mention  of  the  star  refers.  In 
the  passage  in  Hamlet  we  know  the  position  occu- 
pied "  Westward  from  the  pole  "  or  to  the  left  of 
the  pole  star.  We  know  also  the  hour :  "  The  bell 
then  beating  one."  Problem:  Find  the  date  or  time 
of  year  referred  to. 

But,  before  we  can  solve  tliis  problem,  it  is  neces- 
sary to  identify  the  star  referred  to.  And  here  we 
meet  with  the  difficulty  that  has  prevented  all  com- 
mentators from  giving  to  this  passage  a  correct 
interpretation.  For,  upon  examining  the  northern 
heavens,  we  find  that  there  is  no'  bright  particular 
star  that  excels  the  others  in  glory ;  nor  is  there  any 
star  in  the  neighborhood  of  the  pole,  that  is,  from 
its  isolated  position,  in  any  way  conspicuous.  In 
the  northern  sky  we  find  the  well  known  constellation 
Ursa  Major,  or,  as  it  is  better  known  in  this  country, 
the  Dipper.  On  the  opposite  side  of  the  pole  is 
Cassiopeia.  There  are  the  Little  Bear,  the  Dragon, 
and  other  minor  constellations.  But  not  a  single 
one  of  any  of  the  circumpolar  constellations  contains 
a  star  brighter  than  the  second  magnitude.     It  re- 

216 


APPENDIX 

suits,  therefore,  that  we  must  concentrate  our  atten- 
tion upon  the  word  "  star  " ;  else,  in  default  of  any 
other  solution,  the  problem  becomes  hopeless.  I  have 
been  able  to  find  two  instances  in  Elizabethan  litera- 
ture in  which  this  word  is  used  in  a  peculiar  sense; 
and  both  of  these,  published  within  fifteen  years  of 
the  date  of  writing  the  Second  Quarto,  throw  light 
on  the  Hamlet  passage.  In  Grosart's  Life  and 
Works  of  Robert  Greene,  Vol.  Ill,  there  is  pub- 
lished a  tale  called  "  Morando,  The  Tritameron  of 
Love."  On  page  79  occurs  the  following  sentence: 
"  The  starre  Cassioepia  remaineth  in  one  signe  but 
ten  dales,  and  thou  in  one  mind  but  ten  howers." 
It  is  evident  that  the  word  "  star  "  is  here  used  as  an 
equivalent  to  our  word  "  constellation."  Again,  in 
the  old  drama  "  The  Misfortunes  of  Arthur,"  there 
occur  the  following  lines : 

"  The  whiles,  O  Cassiopoea,  gem  bright  signe, 
Most  sacred  sight,  and  sweet  coelestiall  starre.  This 
clymat's  joy,"  etc.  (I,  i). 

Here,  again,  "  star  "  means  "  constellation."  We 
must  therefore  read  the  lines  from  Hamlet  as  mean- 
ing "  When  yond  same  constellation  that's  westward 
from  the  pole,"  etc. 

Now  it  is  an  interesting  fact,  and  one  that  may 
be  more  than  a  coincidence,  that  this  same  constella- 
tion Cassiopeia,  is  westward  from  the  pole  at  one 
o^clock  A.M.  during  the  second  week  in  December. 
It  should  be  explained  that  the  dramatist  did  not 
use  the  word  "  westward  "  in  the  modem  technical 
astronomical  sense  of  the  word.  What  he  undoubt- 
edly meant  was  that  Cassiopeia  occupied  a  position 

217 


APPENDIX 

corresponding  to  the  Figure  IX  on  the  clock;  or, 
in  other  words,  that  it  was  horizontally  to  the  left 
of  the  pole  star.  For  reasons  not  necessary  to  give 
here,  the  position  occupied  by  Cassiopeia  varies 
slightly  with  the  geographical  latitude  of  the  ob- 
server, when  the  word  "  westward  "  is  used  in  the 
popular  sense  in  which  it  is  used  in  the  Hamlet  pas- 
sage. But  the  difference  is  but  little.  It  is  sufficient 
to  say  that,  when  viewed  from  a  point  of  latitude 
forty  degrees  north,  Cassiopeia  is  at  the  present 
time,  horizontally  to  the  left  of  the  pole  star  at  one 
A.M.  about  the  middle  of  December.  This  can  readily 
be  verified  by  anyone.  In  the  latitude  of  London  the 
date  is  several  days  earlier.  Cassiopeia  is  a  con- 
stellation that  can  easily  be  identified.  At  the  date 
and  hour  mentioned  it  is  to  the  westward  of  the  pole 
star.  The  five  brightest  stars  have,  roughly,  the 
shape  of  the  letter  W  which,  then,  is  standing  on 
its  side,  with  what  is  ordinarily  the  top  of  the  W 
turned  toward  the  polar  star.  At  the  time  of  Eliza- 
beth, however,  the  constellation  reached  the  abqve 
position  at  an  earlier  date.  We  must  subtract,  first, 
ten  days,  in  order  to  convert  New  Style  to'  Old  Style. 
And,  secondly,  we  must  subtract  four  days  more,  on 
account  of  what  is  known  as  the  precession  of  the 
equinoxes.  Deducting  these  fourteen  days,  we  ob- 
tain, as  an  astronomical  fact,  the  closing  days  of 
the  month  of  November,  Old  Style,  for  the  date  at 
which  Cassiopeia  was  westward  from  the  pole  at  one 
o'clock  A.M.  as  seen  from  London  in  the  beginning 
of  the  seventeenth  century. 

Let  us  see  what  limits  must  be  placed  to  the  accu- 
218 


APPENDIX 

racy  of  this  calculation.  Let  us  take  an  extreme 
case,  and  see  at  what  date  the  constellation,  instead 
of  being  westward  from  the  pole,  at  Figure  IX  of  the 
clock,  would  be  under  the  pole  and  at  Figure  VI  of 
the  clock.  I  trust,  from  what  I  have  said  at  the 
beginning  of  this  article  regarding  the  celestial 
motions,  that  it  will  readily  be  understood  that  at 
one  o'clock  a.m.  we  shall  find  Cassiopeia  under  the 
pole  some  three  months  after  the  end  of  November, 
viz.,  in  the  latter  part  of  February.  It  would  then 
be  at  what  we  have  called  VI  of  the  dial.  Similarly, 
at  the  end  of  January,  it  would  be  at  VII  of  the  dial ; 
and,  at  the  end  of  December,  at  VIII  of  the  dial. 
So  that,  at  only  thirty  days  after  the  end  of  Novem- 
ber, the  constellation  would  be  displaced  to  a  very 
perceptible  extent  from  the  position  in  the  sky  occu- 
pied in  November.  It  would,  in  fact,  be  downward 
in  the  sky  about  thirty  degrees. 

But  here  another  point  must  be  considered.  From 
a  careful  reading  of  the  Hamlet  passage  it  is  evident 
that  we  are  not  at  liberty  to  decide  that  Cassiopeia 
was  exactly  at  the  Figure  IX  when  Bernardo  pointed 
to  it.  For  his  words  tell  us  that,  although  in  the 
main  westward  from  the  pole,  the  "  star  "  had  "  made 
his  course  to  illume  that  part  of  heaven  where  now 
it  burns."  In  other  words,  it  had  passed,  to  some 
extent,  the  Figure  IX.  This  would  throw  the  date 
into  some  time  in  the  month  of  December.  I  think  we 
are  justified  in  concluding,  however,  that  the  date 
was  not  later  than  December;  for,  as  we  have  just 
seen,  Cassiopeia  in  that  event  would  have  moved 
downward  in  the  sky  to  too  great  an  extent  to'  allow 

219 


APPENDIX 

its  position  to  be  described  as  "  westward  "  from  the 
pole.  Cassiopeia  is  the  only  constellation  that  is 
at  all  conspicuous  in  this  part  of  the  sky. 

Henry  Pemberton,  Jr. 

The  First  and  Second  Quartos  of  Hamlet,  the 
Sonnets,  and  the  Year  1601  * 

the  first  quarto 

This  imperfect  edition  I  believe  to  be  based  partly 
upon  the  early  tragedy  alluded  to  by  Nash  in 
the  year  1589,  the  reflected  image  of  wliich  we 
have  in  the  German  play  Der  Bestrafte  Bruder- 
mord.  Of  the  date  on  which  the  translation — or 
rather  adaptation — into  the  German  language  was 
made,  we  know  nothing.  But  of  the  date  of  composi- 
tion of  the  early  English  play  from  which  the 
Brudermord  was  taken  we  have,  ( 1 )  Nash's  allusion 
in  1589;  (2)  the  Portugal  allusion  in  the  German 
play,  which  gives  likewise  the  year  1589;  and  (3) 
the  Prologue  to  this  Brudermord  in  which  Night  and 
the  Furies  hold  colloquy.  The  employment  of  super- 
natural or  allegorical  characters  in  prologues  is 
characteristic  of  plays  written  in  1585-90.  After 
that  date  the  fashion  became  obsolete.  Thus  in 
"The  Misfortunes  of  Arthur"  (1587),  Gorlois' 
Ghost  speaks  in  the  Induction.  In  the  "  Spanish 
Tragedy  "  (1585-7)  the  Ghost  of  Andrea  and  Re- 
venge similarly  appear.  And  in  the  Induction  to 
"  Soliman  and  Perseda "  (circa  1588),  we  find 
"  Love,"  "  Fortune,"  and  "  Death  "  upon  the  stage. 

*  From  The  New  Shakspeareana  of  October,  1908. 
220 


APPENDIX 

This  Brudermord  Prologue,  therefore,  was  undoubt- 
edly translated  directly  from  the  English.  It  is 
clear  that  the  above  tlii'ee  points  agree  in  estabhsh- 
ing  the  year  1589  as  the  date  of  composition  of 
the  early  English  play — from  which  play  the 
Brudermord  was  adapted.  In  the  Brudermord, 
Polonius  is  called  "  Corambis."  The  logical  infer- 
ence, therefore,  is,  that  in  the  1589  English  play 
also,  Polonius  was  "  Corambis."  But  in  the  1603 
Quarto  we  again  have  "  Corambis  "  as  the  name  of 
the  lord  chamberlain.  It  is  difficult  to  see  whence 
this  name  Corambis  in  the  First  Quarto  was  derived, 
if  not  from  the  early  version  of  1589.  The  second 
reason  for  believing  that  the  First  Quarto  is  based  in 
part  upon  the  old  play  is  deduced  from  a  well-known 
variation  between  the  texts  of  the  First  and  Second 
Quartos,  which  variation  has  never  hitherto  been 
satisfactorily  explained. 

In  the  July,  1906,  New  Shakspeareana  I  pre- 
sented evidence  showing  that  the  original  of 
"  Yorick "  of  the  graveyard  scene  in  Hamlet 
was  John  Heywood,  the  epigrammatist.  I 
may  here  pause  for  a  moment,  to  give  some  new 
facts  regarding  Heywood  that  have  come  to  light 
since  my  above-mentioned  paper  was  written.  In 
Englische  Studien,  Vol.  38  (1907),  page  234, 
W.  Bang  has  an  article  "  John  Hc3^wood  and  his 
Circle,"  in  which  he  reproduces  some  recently  dis- 
covered manuscripts  of  the  sixteenth  century.  We 
learn  therefrom  that  Heywood's  wife,  nee  Eliza 
Rastell,"  was  the  niece  of  no  less  a  personage  than 
Sir  Thomas  More.  Furthermore,  Heywood  was  liv- 
ing in  Malines  in  1573  (when,  by  the  way,  William 

221 


APPENDIX 

Shakespeare  of  Stratford  was  nine  years  of  age). 
How  much  earlier  than  1573  he  had  been  there  is 
unknown.  In  1576  he  was  living  in  Antwerp,  whither 
he  had  been  in\dted  by  his  Jesuit  friends.  He  was 
still  alive  on  May  26th,  1578;  for,  on  that  date,  he 
and  the  other  members  of  the  Jesuit  fraternity  were 
removed  to'  Louvain,  their  Antwerp  establishment 
having  been  sacked  by  the  anti-Catholic  party.  The 
Gravedigger  in  Hamlet  informs  us  that  Yorick's 
skull  had  lain  in  the  earth  twenty-three  years.  Sub- 
tracting twenty-three  from  1601,  the  year  in  which 
the  Second  Quarto'  was  written,  we  obtain  this  same 
year  1578  as  the  year  of  his  death.  From  the 
above-mentioned  date.  May  26th,  1578,  to  the  fol- 
lowing March  24th,  when  the  year  ended,  there 
was  an  intci*val  of  ten  months.  Whether  he  died  in 
this  interval  or  not  Ave  have  as  3'^et  no  proof  other 
than  that  inferentially  furnished  by  the  Hamlet 
passage.  The  only  facts  bearing  on  the  question 
are :  that  he  was  then  over  eighty  years  of  age  and 
probably  in  poor  health ;  for,  about  three  years  ear- 
lier— in  September  4th,  1575 — he  had  written  Lord 
Burghley  that  he  was  "  weak  and  unable  to  travel." 
(Historical  Manuscript  Commission;  Hatfield 
House,  Vol.  2,  page  104.)  I  am  informed  that,  with 
a  view  to  obtaining  further  data  (for  his  biogra- 
phy), investigations  are  now  being  made  abroad; 
and  these  may  give  us  the  desired  information. 

Returning  to  our  argument ;  Yorick  having  died 
in  1578  (according  to  the  Gravedigger's  statement), 
the  simple  arithmetical  problem  arises :  how  long  had 
he  been  dead  in  1589,  the  year  in  which  the  early 
Hamlet  was  written.'^     Evidently  his  skull  had  at 

222 


APPENDIX 

that  date  been  lying  in  the  earth  eleven  years.  Let 
us  call  this,  roughly,  a  dozen  years.  Be  it  observed 
how  definitely  this  agrees  with  the  statement  made 
in  the  First  Quarto : — "  Heres  a  scull  hath  bin  here 
this  dozen  yeare." 

But  in  the  Second  Quarto  it  reads :  "  This  scull 
has  laine  in  the  earth  three  &  twenty  years."  The 
dissimilarity  in  the  texts  of  the  two  Quartos, — the 
one  giving  twenty-three  years,  and  the  other  a  dozen 
years — has  been  puzzled  over  by  nearly  every  com- 
mentator of  Hamlet.  The  foregoing  explanation 
clears  the  difficulty.  But  the  special  point  to  be 
noted  is,  that  this  "  dozen  year  "  of  the  First  Quarto 
(like  the  Corambis  name  in  the  First  Quarto)  carries 
us  back  to  1589,  the  year  of  the  old  play  as  just 
shown,  and  justifies  the  statement  that  a  certain 
but  undefined  percentage  of  the  old  play  is  embodied 
in  the  1603  version. 

But  the  First  Quarto  contains  undoubted  refer- 
ences to  events  of  the  seventeenth  century.  Of  these 
I  cite  two ;  and  both  are  common  to  the  1603  and  1604 
versions.  One  is  the  travelling  of  the  players  in 
1601.  The  other  is  the  reference  {Hamlet  L,  i,  72- 
78)  to  the  "  impress  of  shipwrights,"  "  the  daily  cast 
of  brazen  canon,"  etc.  That  tliis  is  a  topical  allu- 
sion is  shown  by  the  following  from  Stow's  Abridg- 
ment of  the  English  Chronicle ;  continued  by  Howes 
to  1618,  page  426.  "  February,  1601,  (New  Style). 
It  happened  upon  a  strong  report  of  the  Spaniards' 
preparation  for  a  second  invasion  that  the  city  was 
at  extraordinary  charges  in  building  and  altering 
the  upper  decks  of  many  great  strong  hoyes  and 
new  cutting  in  them  lower  portholes   apt   for  the 

223 


APPENDIX 

ready  use  of  great  Ordnances,  which  vessels  so 
altered  and  prepared  were  called  Drumlers.  And 
this  year  the  citizens  gave  five  fifteens  towards  the 
new  making  and  ample  furnishing  of  two'  Gallies. 
And  when  these  costly  Gallies  were  lanched,  rigged, 
and  in  all  points  furnished,  then  the  City  gave  them 
unto  the  Queene." 

Tliis  describes  the  "  sweaty  hast  "  in  which  the 
"  impressed  shipwrights  "  were  forced  to  work  day 
and  night,  Sundays  included,  upon  these  many 
"  great  strong  hoyes  and  costly  Gallies  "  that  were 
altered  and  constructed  at  that  time.  Be  it  noted 
that  this  Hamlet  passage  is  identical  in  both  ver- 
sions, word  for  word  (two  printer's  errors  excepted). 
I  repeat  what  I  suggested  at  the  outset.  The  1603 
Quarto  is  probably  composite ;  it  is  based  in  part 
upon  the  play  of  1589,  but  has  had  engrafted  upon  it 
much  matter  surreptitiously  taken  from  the  "  true 
coppie." 

THE    SONNETS 

No  one  who  has  read  Mr.  Thomas  Tyler's  interest- 
ing "  Shakespeare's  Sonnets  "  can  fail  to  be  im- 
pressed by  the  evidence  by  which  he  establishes  his 
Pembroke-Fitton  view.  The  date  of  composition  of 
many  of  the  Sonnets  he  places  at  about  1601.  I 
submit  some  testimony  in  support  of  this  date.  In 
the  one  hundred  and  seventh  Sonnet  we  find  these 
lines : 

The  mortal  moon  hath  her  eclipse  endur'd 
And  the  sad  augurs  mock  their  own  presage; 

Incertainties  now  crown  themselves  assur'd, 
And  peace  proclaims  olives  of  endless  age." 

224 


APPENDIX 

The  closing  years  of  Elizabeth's  reign  were  trying 
times  to  the  people  of  England.  Lord  Burghley,  the 
real  head  of  the  government,  had  but  recently  gone 
to  his  long  home;  and  in  the  hands  of  a  younger 
and  less  trusted  element  rested  the  settlement  of  the 
Essex  insurrection,  the  Spanish  attack  upon  Ireland, 
and  the  uprising,  there,  of  Tyrone.  While  this 
Catholic  attack  upon  the  government  was  still  under 
way,  and  the  nation's  suspense  was  at  its  greatest, 
there  occurred,  in  the  early  winter  of  1601,  a  series 
of  unusual  meteorological  phenomena.  Between  No- 
vember 29th  of  that  year  and  the  following  Christ- 
mas, there  were  great  lightning  and  thunder  storms, 
an  earthquake,  continual  tempests,  an  eclipse  of  the 
moon,  and  an  eclipse  of  the  sun.  All  of  these  events, 
occurring  within  a  period  of  four  weeks,  excited  wide 
attention.  Stow,  in  his  "  Abridgment  "  commented 
upon  them,  so  did  Fynes  Moryson  in  his  "  Itinerary." 
Chamberlin  and  Carlton,  in  their  letters,  speak  of 
the  "  straunge  and  extraordinarie  "  events  in  this 
wonderful  season.  I  have,  in  a  previous  article,  en- 
deavored to  show  that,  in  the  first  scene  of  Hamlet, 
reference  was  made  to  these  fierce  events  as  harbin- 
gers, or  omens,  which  heaven  and  earth  had  demon- 
strated "  unto  our  climatures  and  countrymen."  In 
the  above  lines  from  the  Sonnet,  the  "  sad  augurs  " 
refer  to  the  same  omens.  But  here  we  are  told  that 
these  augurs  "  mock  their  own  presage  " ;  that  in 
place  of  uncertainty  there  is  security;  and  that 
peace  has  been  established  M^hich  may  refer  to  the 
accession  of  James  I. 

Finally,  a  word  may  be  said  regarding  this  whole 
15  225 


APPENDIX 

subject  of  topical  allusions.  I  am  well  aware  that 
there  are  many  who'  would  no  more  think  of  looking 
for  such  allusions  in  a  play  like  Hamlet  than  they 
would  think  of  looking  for  them  in  Shelley's  "  Ode 
to  a  Skylark,"  for  example.  Such  a  view  of  course 
obstructs  inquiry.  The  weight  to  be  attached  to 
such  references  in  the  text  increases  with  their  num- 
ber, since  the  evidence  becomes  cumulative.  In  order 
to  add  to  this  number  I  direct  attention  to  allusions 
in  the  following  plays: 

Romeo  aiid  Juliet,  1,  V,  32—42.  Lucentio  and  his 
son. 

Twelfth  Night,  1,  II,  36-41.  Olivia's  father  and 
brother. 

Twelfth  Night,  V,  1,  66.    "  Your  young  nephew." 

These  problems  I  have  not  been  able  to  solve. 
Perhaps  some  reader  of  this  paper  may  be  more  for- 
tunate. Search  should  be  made  in  biographies  of 
English  noblemen  living  during  the  last  third  of 
the  sixteenth  century. 

Henry  Pemberton,  Jr. 

Topical  Allusions   in   the   Sonnets,   and   the 

Identity  of  the  Person  to  Whom  the 

Sonnets  Were  Addressed  ^ 

sonnet  125 

Were't  aught  to  me  I  bore  the  canopy. 
With  my  extern  the  outward  honoring. 

The  expression  "  bore  the  canopy  "  has  been  in- 
terpreted   as    being    a    metaphorical   or    figurative 

^  From  The  New  Shakspeareana  of  May,  1909. 
226 


APPENDIX 

phrase,  signifying  "  rendered  outward  homage  " ; 
but  no  authority  exists  for  so  construing  it;  the 
New  EngHsh  Dictionary  gives  no  such  definition; 
and  the  explanation  is  simply  a  lame  effort  to  remove 
obscurity.  The  only  writer,  to  my  knowledge,  who 
has  attributed  a  subjective  meaning  to  these  lines, 
worthy  of  consideration,  is  the  late  Rev.  Walter 
Begley.  In  his  "  Is  it  Shakespeare,"  page  231,  he 
states:  "I  suggest  that  the  date  was  June  16th, 
1600,  when  the  Queen  came  to  Blackfriars  to  grace 
by  her  presence  the  wedding  of  Mistress  Anne 
Russell,  one  of  her  maids  of  honor,  .  .  .  the 
Queen  was  carried  from  the  water  side  in  a  lee  tic  a, 
borne  by  six  knights."  Mr.  Begley  suggests  that 
the  expression  is  a  definite  reference  to  the  wedding 
in  question,  and  infers  that  the  author  of  the  Sonnet 
was  one  of  the  six  bearers  of  the  lectica  or  canopy  in 
which  Queen  Elizabeth  was  carried.  As  to  the  fact 
of  her  Majesty  having  been  present  on  this  occasion 
we  have  the  statement  in  Chamberlain's  letter  of 
June  24th,  1600:  "The  Queen  was  present  at  the 
great  marriage  of  Lady  Russell's ;  she  was  carried 
from  the  water  side  in  a  curious  chair,  and  lodged  at 
Lord  Cobhams."  There  is,  however,  a  much  more 
interesting  and  elaborate  discussion  of  matters  relat- 
ing to  this  "  great  marriage,"  that  evidently  escaped 
Mr.  Begley's  notice.  It  appears  that  in  commem- 
oration of  this  occasion  an  oil  painting  was  painted 
by  a  now  unknown  artist,  which  is  still  extant.  In 
this  are  represented  the  Queen  herself;  four  of  the 
six  knights  who  carried  the  canopy  in  which  she  is 
seated;  a  number  of  noblemen  wearing  the  order  of 

227 


APPENDIX 

the  Garter,  who  precede  the  Queen;  and  a  group 
of  ladies  gay,  who,  with  the  bride  and  her  mother, 
follow.  Moreover,  the  identity  of  a  number  of  the 
members  of  the  nobility  therein  portrayed  has  been 
established.  The  discovery  of  the  true  event  com- 
memorated by  the  painting — the  wedding  in  ques- 
tion— was  made  by  George  Scharf,  F.  S.  A.  Secre- 
tary to  the  National  Portrait  Gallery.  In  an  article 
in  "  The  Archaeological  Journal  "  (London),  Vol. 
23,  1866,  pages  131  and  302,  entitled  "Queen 
Elizabeth's  Procession  in  a  Litter  to  celebrate  the 
marriage  of  Anne  Russell,  at  Blackfriars,  June  16th, 
1600,"  he  presents  a  copy  of  the  painting.  Under- 
neath this  we  read  "  From  the  painting  of  Sher- 
borne, Dorset."  Mr.  Scharf  tells  us  that  "  this 
picture  is  No.  256  of  the  present  (1866)  Exhibition 
of  National  Portraits  at  South  Kensington,"  and 
adds  that  Lord  Digby  permitted  the  picture  to  be 
removed  from  Sherborne  Castle  in  Dorsetshire  for 
a  few  months  to  Manchester  in  1857  for  exhibition 
there.  He  states,  also,  that  "  a  repetition  "  of  the 
painting  is  said  to  be  (in  1866)  at  Lord  Ilchester's. 
In  Nichol's  "Progresses  of  Queen  Elizabeth,"  I,  282, 
a  full  page  reproduction  of  the  painting  is  given. 
This  is  erroneously — though  only  tentatively — 
stated  to  represent  an  event  that  took  place  several 
decades  earlier.  Mr.  Scharf  pronounces  Nichol's 
reproduction  to  be  worthless.  "  Mr.  Furnivall,  in  his 
edition  of  '  Stubb's  Anatomy  of  Abuses  '  in  the  Pro- 
ceedings of  the  NeAV  Shakespeare  Society,  1879,  has, 
as  a  frontispiece,  a  much  larger,  and  apparently 
better  engraving  of  the  painting.     He  states  that 

228 


APPENDIX 

*  the  original  picture  is  Lord  Ilchester's,'  and  refers 
to  that  of  Digby's  as  being  a  replica  only." 

Among  the  noblemen  attending  the  Queen  Mr. 
Scharf  identifies  Edward,  fourth  earl  of  Worcester, 
father  of  the  groom;  Charles  earl  of  Nottingham, 
Lord  High  Admiral;  liis  brother-in-law  George 
Carey,  the  Lord  Chamberlain  (patron  of  the  com- 
pany for  which  the  Shakespeare  plays  were  written)  ; 
Henry  Brooke,  sixth  lord  Cobham,  son-in-law  of 
Nottingham ;  and  George  Clifford,  earl  of  Cumber- 
land. 

Of  those  who  bore  the  canopy  Mr.  Scharf's  identi- 
fication is  less  certain.  Of  the  six  knights  spoken  of 
only  four  appear  in  the  oil  painting;  the  two  others 
being  on  the  far  side  of  the  canopy  and  therefore 
hidden  by  the  figure  of  the  Queen  and  by  the  other 
figures  nearer  the  observer.  One  of  the  four  is  the 
groom,  Lord  Herbert,  son  of  the  earl  of  Worcester. 
Mr.  Scharf  thinks  that  the  second  is  Roger  Manners, 
earl  of  Rutland,  who  led  the  bride  from  the  church, 
and  the  third,  Lord  Herbert  of  Cardiffe,  son  of  the 
earl  of  Pembroke.  The  fourth  bearer  of  the  canopy 
has  caused  Mr.  Scharf  much  speculation.  The  fig- 
ure in  question  is  immediately  between  the  groom 
and  his  father,  the  earl  of  Worcester.  Mr.  Scharf 
speaks  of  it  as  "  the  gaily  dressed  slim  figure," 
and  mentions  the  "  richness  and  peculiar  ornamen- 
tation of  the  dress,"  the  "  extreme  elegance  and  rich- 
ness of  the  figure  in  question,"  referring,  of  course, 
to  the  original  oil  painting.  From  what  he  says  one 
is  reminded  of  the  line  in  the  Sonnet,  "  with  my 
extern  the  outward  honoring."     Mr.   Scharf  also 

229 


APPENDIX 

remarks  that  being  so  distinctly  within  a  family 
group,  the  person  so  represented  was  probably  con- 
nected with  the  family  by  near  ties  of  relationship. 

I  suggest  that  Sir  Walter  Ralegh  may  well  have 
been  that  fourth  knight — that  "  gaily  dressed  slim 
figure,"  so  elegantly  and  richly  attired  as  was  his 
custom.  A  critical  study  of  the  oil  painting,  it  is 
evident,  might  yield  results  of  much  interest.  Mr. 
Scharf  gives  several  contemporary  accounts  of  this 
wedding.  Of  these  I  give  the  letter  of  Rowland 
Whyte  under  date  of  June  23d,  1600 :  "  This  day 
se*night  her  Majestie  was  at  Blackfriars  to  grace 
the  marriage  of  Lord  Harbert  and  his  wife.  The 
bride  met  the  Queen  at  the  water-side,  where  my 
Lord  Cobham  had  provided  a  lectica,  made  like  a 
litter,  whereon  she  was  carried  to  my  Lady  Russell's 
by  six  knights.  Her  Majesty  dined  there,  and  at 
night  went  through  Dr.  Puddin's  house  (who  gave 
the  Queen  a  fanne)  to  my  Lord  Cobham's,  where  she 
supped.  After  supper  the  masks  came  in."  Here 
follows  a  description  of  the  masque,  in  which  Mis- 
tress Mary  Fitton  took  a  prominent  part. 
"  The  bride  was  led  to  the  church  by  the  Lord 
Harbert  of  Cardife  and  my  Lord  Cobham ;  and  from 
the  church  by  the  Earles  of  Rutland  and  Cumber- 
land. The  gifts  given  that  day  were  valewed  at 
£1000  in  plate  and  jewels  at  least.  The  entertain- 
ment was  great  and  plentifull,  and  my  Lady  Russell 
much  commended  for  it." 

Returning  to  the  consideration  of  the  125th  Son- 
net :  I  believe  the  Shakespeare  Sonnets  to  have  been 
written  between  the  years  1598  and  1602  inclusive; 

230 


APPENDIX 

and  at  the  end  of  this  article  I  give  my  reasons  for 
so  thinking.  The  date  of  the  wedding  just  described, 
June  16th,  1600,  falls  in  the  middle  of  this  period. 
That  it  was  a  notable  event  in  court  circles  and  one 
of  great  splendor  is  amply  proved ;  and  when  I  offer 
for  consideration  the  proposition  that  the  author  of 
the  Sonnet  stated  that  he  was  one  of  those  who  bore 
the  canopy  of  the  Queen,  and  that  he  honored  the 
occasion  by  his  outward  appearance,  I,  on  the  one 
hand,  present  this  historical  event  as  one  to  which 
the  Sonnet  may  well  have  referred,  and  which  I 
believe  to  be  entirely  consonant  with  the  date  of 
composition;  and  on  the  other  hand  give  to  the 
word  "  extern  "  the  same  definition  that  is  given  by 
the  New  English  Dictionary,  wherein  is  quoted  this 
identical  line  from  the  Sonnet  as  the  authority  for 
the  definition.  Furthermore  the  presence  at  the  wed- 
ding of  Mary  Fitton  and  the  young  Lord  Herbert 
— afterwards  Earl  of  Pembroke — is  noteworthy.  I 
do  not  imagine  that  anyone  supposes  that  William 
Shakespeare  of  Stratford  could  have  been  present 
at  this  wedding.  I  may  add  that  this  is  not  the  only 
instance  in  which,  in  my  opinion,  the  attributing  to 
Shakespeare  the  authorship  of  the  Plays  and  Son- 
nets has  acted  as  a  hindrance  to  their  study. 

SONNETS  153  AND   154 

The  concluding  Sonnets  of  the  entire  group  are 
adapted  from  a  Greek  poem,  and  are  disposed  of 
by  the  commentators  in  short  order.  They  describe 
them  as  being  early  essays,  harmless  trifles,  or  ob- 
viously nothing  more  than  poetical  exercises  on  a 

231 


APPENDIX 

Renaissance  convention.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  they 
probably  represent,  in  alternative  forms,  a  compli- 
ment paid  by  the  poet  to  Queen  Elizabeth,  who,  an 
excellent  linguist  herself,  would  undoubtedly  have 
appreciated  this  graceful  tribute,  so  artistically  en- 
grafted upon  the  Greek  epigram.  Steevens  was  the 
first  to  suggest  that  the  word  "  bath  "  in  the  eleventh 
line  of  each  Sonnet  was  an  allusion  to  the  city  of 
Bath,  England.  Mr.  George  Greenwood,  in  his 
"  Shakespeare  Problem  Restated,"  page  127  (seq.), 
infers  that  Elizabeth  and  the  city  of  Bath  are  re- 
ferred to,  and  concludes  that  she  and  "  Shake- 
speare "  were  there,  and  that  the  date  in  question 
was  the  year  1592. 

An  analysis  of  the  twoi  Sonnets  yields  the  following 
results : 

(1)  The  city  of  Bath,  one  of  the  oldest  in  Eng- 
land, is  situated  in  a  wooded  valley,  and  rises  in  ter- 
races on  the  natural  amphitheatre  of  hills  surround- 
ing it.  Hence  the  term  "  valley  fountain  "  in  153,  4. 
(2)  The  temperature  of  the  several  baths  runs 
from  90  to  117  degrees  Fahrenheit.  Old  Leland  tells 
us  that  the  water  of  one  of  the  baths  "  rikith  "  (i.e., 
fumes  or  emits  vapor)  "  like  a  sething  potte  con- 
tinually." Hence  the  description  in  153,  7,  "  And 
grew  a  seething  bath."  (3)  The  curative  value  of 
these  waters  was  well  known.  Lord  North  visited 
Bath  for  the  benefit  of  his  health  in  March  and 
August,  1600,  as  did  Robert  earl  of  Salisbury 
shortly  before  his  death  in  1612;  and  in  Sonnet 
153,  8  we  are  told  that  the  bath  proves  "  Against 
strange  maladies  a  sovereign  cure."    This  statement 

232 


APPENDIX 

is  repeated  in  Sonnet  154,  11-12:  "  Growing  a  bath 
and  healthful  remedy  for  men  diseased."  (4)  Queen 
Elizabeth  is  referred  to  in  both  Sonnets ;  in  153,  2  as 
a  "  maid  of  Dian's,"  and  in  154,  5  as  "  the  fairest 
votary."  (See  Mid.  N.  Dream,  II,  1,  163)— the 
customary  allusion  toi  her  virginity  following  three 
lines  below.  (5)  The  poet  was  at  Bath,  and 
(6)  He  was  ill.  Those  two  facts  are  stated  in 
153,  11-12.  "I,  sick  withal  the  help  of  bath  de- 
sired. And  tliither  hied  a  sad  distempter's  guest," 
and  again  in  154,  13:  "But  I,  my  mistress'  thrall, 
came  there  for  cure." 

Mr.  Greenwood's  interpretation  of  the  two  Son- 
nets, therefore,  appears  to  be  correct.  The  "  valley 
fountain,"  the  "  seething  bath  "  which  is  "  a  health- 
ful remedy  for  men  diseased,"  are  descriptions  ex- 
actly agreeing  with  known  facts.  The  presence  of 
the  Queen  at  Bath,  as  M^ell  as  the  presence  there 
of  some  person  unknown,  who^  was  ill,  and  who 
wrote  the  two'  Sonnets,  are  facts  yet  to  be 
established.  And,  first,  as  to  the  year  1592. 
This  date  is  wholly  at  variance  with  a  number  of 
other  dates  relating  to  the  Sonnets,  which  I  give 
below.  If  it  can  be  shown  that  Elizabeth  was  at 
Bath,  or  had  expected  to  go  there,  in  1592,  and  in 
that  year  only,  such  evidence  would  be  an  argument 
against  the  Pembroke-Fitton  theory  of  the  Sonnets  ; 
for,  in  1592  Pembroke  was  a  boy  of  twelve.  And 
yet  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  Queen  was  there 
in  1592;  for  this  fact  is  distinctly  stated  in  Nichol's 
"  Progresses  of  Queen  Elizabeth  "  (III,  250).  The 
alternative,  of  course,  is  that  she  visited  Bath  on 
another  occasion  and  at  a  later  date. 

233 


APPENDIX 

John  Chamberlain,  in  his  letter  of  July  8,  1602 
(Camden  Soc'y)  states  that  it  was  intended  that  the 
Queen  in  her  Progress  should  go  "  to  Bath  and 
Bristow  to  visit  the  Lord  Chamberlain  that  lies  there 
for  help  "  (i.e.,  who  is  staying  at  Bath  and  "  came 
there  for  cure.")  Here  we  have  two  cities  men- 
tioned— Bath  and  Bristow.  Uncertainty  is  removed 
by  Chamberlain's  letter  of  October  2d,  1602  (I.e.), 
"  The  Lord  Chamberlain  is  come  home  from  the 
Bath,  but  neither  much  better  nor  worse  than  when 
he  went  out."  The  Lord  Chamberlain  here  referred 
to  was,  of  course,  George  Carey,  Lord  Hunsdon, 
the  Lord  Chamberlain  and  the  patron  of  the  Com- 
pany for  which  the  Shakespeare  plays  were  written. 
He  had  been  lame  and  sick  for  some  time,  and  died 
in  1603.  There  is  no  evidence,  to  my  knowledge, 
showing  him  to  have  been  a  poet  or  dramatic  writer. 

It  should  be  mentioned  that,  as  a  matter  of 
fact,  the  Queen  did  not  then  go  to  Bath  after 
all.  There  had  been  heavy  rains  during  the  month 
of  August,  and  the  delays  caused  thereby,  the 
wretched  condition  of  the  roads,  and  the  lateness 
of  the  season  caused  her  to  curtail  her  Progress. 
Moreover,  there  was  "  an  infection  of  the  small 
pockes  spred  over  all  the  countrie  "  which  alarmed 
her.  See  Thomas  Edmond's  letter  of  September  1, 
1602',  in  Lodge's  Illustrations,  II,  568 ;  Chamber- 
lain's letter  of  October  2,  1602 ;  also  several  letters 
in  the  Historical  Manuscript  Commission  (Salis- 
bury) August,  1602.  The  Queen  was  then  ap- 
proaching the  seventieth  year  of  her  age. 

234 


APPENDIX 

The  identity  of  the  person  to  whom  the  Sonnets 
were  addressed  is  largely  a  matter  of  dates.  South- 
ampton was  born  in  1573,  and  Pembroke  in  1580. 
If  the  Sonnets  were  written  in  1598—1602  South- 
ampton, at  these  dates,  would  have  been  25—29  years 
old.  To  suppose  that  the  poet  addressed  a  man  of 
these  years  as  "  my  lovely  boy  "  and  stated  that  he 
resembled  "  cherubins  "  would,  as  Mr.  Tyler  has 
remarked,  be  quite  impossible.  Pembroke's  age  at 
this  period  was  18-22  years.  One  of  the  main  argu- 
ments of  the  supporters  of  the  Southampton  theory 
(Massey,  Sarrazin,  Lee,)  is  based  upon  the  resem- 
blances between  the  thought  and  imagery  of  the 
Sonnets  and  the  thought  and  imagery  of  the  earlier 
works — from  Venus  and  Adonis  of  1593  to  Love's 
Labor's  Lost  of  1598.  Let  us  take  1595  as  the 
average  date  of  these  early  works.  From  1595  until 
1609  inclusive,  when  the  Sonnets  were  published  and 
most  of  the  plays  written,  there  was  an  interval  of 
fifteen  years.  Then  in  a  decreasing  proportion 
would  such  thought  and  imagery  appear  in  the  suc- 
cessive works,  arriving  at  a  minimum  in  the  latest 
plays.  Taking  the  average  date  of  composition  of 
the  Sonnets  as  1600,  it  is  evident  that  of  the  fifteen 
years  mentioned,  five  only  had  elapsed.  In  other 
words,  the  chances  are  ten  out  of  fifteen — or  two  out 
of  three — that  we  should  find  in  the  Sonnets  the  very 
similitudes  upon  which  so  much  stress  has  been  laid. 

Lack  of  space  prevents  me  from  more  than  refer- 
ring to  the  pessimistic  and  gloomy  view  of  life  so 
frequently  occurring  in  the  Sonnets  and  so  charac- 
teristic of  Hamlet  and  later  plays,  but  absent 
from  the  earlier  comedies ;  to  the  resemblances  be- 

235 


APPENDIX 

tween  the  Shakespeare  Sonnets  and  those  of  Dray- 
ton of  1599,  but  not  those  of  Drayton  of  1594;  to 
the  known  facts  regarding  Mary  Fitton  as  the  proto- 
type of  the  Dark  Lady,  whereas  no  similar  proto- 
type has  been  suggested  suitable  to  the  Southampton 
view — and  to  other  arguments  showing  Pembroke 
probably  to  have  been  the  addressee. 

No  trustworthy  topical  allusion  has  been  discov- 
ered referring  to  events  prior  to  1595,  and  thereby 
supporting  the  Southampton  theory.  The  Pem- 
broke view  appears  to  stand  the  test  of  examination 
well.  Henry  Pemberton,  Jr. 

Concerning  "  The  Yeoman  of  the  Wardrobe  "  ^ 

Malvolio.  There's  example  for't;  the  lady  of  the 
Strachy  married  the  yeoman  of  the  wardrobe. — Twelfth 
Night,  II,  5,  44. 

All,  efforts  to  throw  light  on  the  allusion  con- 
tained in  these  lines  have  been  confined  to  attempts 
to  discover  the  prototype  of  the  lady  of  the  Strachy. 
Numerous  emendations  Kave  been  suggested,  such  as 
Duchy,  Starchy,  Stitchery,  and  I  know  not  how 
many  more.  All  these,  however,  are  explanations 
in  which  nothing  is  explained ;  and  the  sub j  ect  is  still 
as  obscure  as  it  was  when  Hanmer  opened  the  dis- 
cussion over  a  century  and  a  half  ago.  Accordingly 
the  attempt  is  made  herein  to'  approach  the  inquiry 
from  a  different  standpoint — that  of  the  yeoman  of 
the  wardrobe — and  to  see  if  it  be  possible  to  discover 
the  identity  of  the  person  thus  alluded  to.    That  the 

*  From  The  New  Shakspeareana  of  September,  1909. 
236 


APPENDIX 

poet  had  in  mind  some  specific  person,  possibly  some 
prominent  character,  is  clear  from  his  use  of  the 
definite  article:  the  yeoman  of  the  wardrobe.  This 
view  would  be  strengthened  the  more  could  it  be 
shown  that  the  dramatist,  through  the  words  he  has 
given  to  Malvolio,  was  possibly  indulging  in  a  sly 
hit  at  the  personage  in  question.  For,  by  predicat- 
ing that  a  satirical  shaft  had  thus  been  directed, 
wliich  would  have  been  understood  and  appreciated 
by  an  Elizabethan  audience,  we  give  point  to  Mal- 
volio's  remark.  It  then  becomes  what  we  should 
now-a-days  call  a  local  "  hit."  On  the  other  hand, 
if  we  are  content  to  believe  that  the  lady  and  the 
yeoman  were  merely  vague,  shadowy  characters,  it  Is 
clear  that  we  credit  Malvolio,  in  his  attempt  to  jus- 
tify his  desired  alliance  with  Olivia,  with  making  a 
comparison  based  upon  no  definite  incident,  and  one, 
therefore,  that  was  apropos  of  nothing. 

The  late  Mr.  Fleay  gave  it  as  his  opinion  that  the 
Shakespeare  plays  were  first  produced  at  court. 
Whether  this  be  true  or  not,  there  can  be  little  doubt 
as  to  the  character  of  the  audiences  for  which  the 
plays  were  intended — audiences  composed  of  the  elite 
of  London.  This  is  so  evident  from  the  character  of 
the  dramas  themselves  that  the  point  need  not  be 
further  labored.  Hence,  in  examining  this  topical 
allusion  we  shall  be  more  likely  to  be  successful  in 
our  inquiry  if  guided  by  this  fact.  But,  in  a  search 
for  any  prominent  person  living  in  Elizabethan  times 
who  had  married  above  his  station,  we  are  met  by  the 
fact  that  no  such  mesalliance  took  place — or,  at 
least,  none  of  such  prominence  as  to  allow  the  cross- 

237 


APPENDIX 

gartered  gull  making  use  of  it  as  the  basis  of  his 
comparison.  A  long  line  of  critics  has  been  able 
to  discover  no  contemporary  event  of  this  kind.  And 
the  only  alternative  to  giving  up  the  problem  as 
hopeless  appears  to  be  that  of  looking  for  some 
yeoman  of  the  wardrobe  who  married  at  a  period 
earlier  than  that  which  we  are  now  considering, 
but  at  a  date  not  so  remote  as  to  be  out  of  the  ken 
of  the  members  of  the  court  living  at  the  close  of  the 
sixteenth  century,  when  the  play  was  written.  The 
suggestion  I  have  to  present  is,  that  the  allusion  in 
Twelfth  Night  was  to  the  marriage  of  Richard  Cecil, 
the  father  of  William  Cecil  Lord  Burghley,  which 
took  place  some  time  prior  to  1520,  the  year  in  which 
Lord  Burghley  was  born. 

It  may  possibly  be  a  surprise  to  some  to  learn  that 
Burghley's  forbears  were  probably  of  obscure  ex- 
traction. Burghley  himself  made  laborious  efforts  to 
establish  a  line  of  descent  from  the  ancient  family  of 
Sitselt.  The  Rev.  Augustus  Jessopp,  in  his  article 
on  Burghley  in  the  Diet.  Natl.  Biog.,  IX,  406, 
states :  "  Though  immense  pains  were  taken  to  con- 
struct a  long  pedigree  of  the  (Cecil)  family  by  no 
less  a  person  than  Camden  the  antiquary,  and 
though  Cecil  himself  spared  no  effort  to  prove  his 
descent  from  an  ancient  stock  of  notable  personages, 
it  has  hitherto  proved  impossible,  and  probably  will 
always  remain  so,  to  trace  the  origin  of  the  family 
further  back  than  the  great  statesman's  grand- 
father, David  Cecil."  Dr.  Jessopp  repeats  this 
statement — in  effect — in  his  contribution  to  the 
"  Historical  Monograph,  William  Cecil  Lord  Burgh- 

238 


APPENDIX 

ley  "  (London,  T.  C.  and  E.  C.  Jack,  1904).  In  the 
same  monograph  Mr.  A.  C.  Fox-Davies  informs  us, 
in  his  comprehensive  Genealogy  of  the  Cecil  family, 
that  (italics  mine)  : — "  There  are  many  Cecil  pedi- 
grees in  existence  all  dating'  from  a  period  contem- 
porary with  the  lifetime  of  the  great  Lord  Burghley, 
who  was  somewhat  of  a  genealogist  himself.  These 
all  attribute  to  the  Cecil  family  a  descent  from  a 
Sitselt  or  Sitsell,  who  in  1091  received  lands  in 
Wales  from  Robert  Fitz  Hamon,  the  pedigree  being 
traced  through  the  Family  of  Sitsilt  of  Altyrennes, 
County  Hereford.  These  pedigrees  have  never  been 
disproved  ...  at  the  same  time  the  descent  is 
not  now  capable  of  proof."  Accordingly  this  author- 
ity states  that  "  the  undoubted  genealogy  of  the 
Cecil  family  must  commence  as  under  David  Syssell 
or  Cyssell  of  Stamford  "  the  grandfather  of  Burgh- 
ley; and  he  so  begins  it.  Concerning  this  David 
Cecil,  Mr.  Fox-Davies  further  writes : — "  The  de- 
scent (from  the  ancient  family)  was  doubted  in 
Burghley's  lifetime,  for  his  enemies  twitted  him  that 
his  grandfather  *  kept  the  best  inn  in  Stamford  ' 
and  the  first  Lord  Exeter  (Burghley's  son)  seems  to 
have  been  by  no  means  certain  on  the  point."  Con- 
firming this  uncertainty  on  the  part  of  Lord  Exeter 
I  find  a  query  and  a  reply  thereto  in  the  Northamp- 
tonshire Notes  and  Queries,  Vol.  I,  page  98,  and  Vol. 
Ill,  page  47,  headed  "  The  Grandson  of  a  Sieve- 
Maker,"  as  follows : — "Amongst  the  Harleian  M.S.S. 
(374  pencil  folio  32,)  in  the  British  Museum  is  a 
letter  from  Thomas  Secyll  Earl  of  Exeter,  to  Hugh 
Allington,  Esq.,  dated  from  London,  13  November, 

239 


APPENDIX 

1605,  acquainting  him  that  some  had  called  his 
brother  the  Earl  of  Salisbury,  "  The  Grandson  of 
a  Sieve-Maker,"  which  expression  he  thought  a 
reflection  upon  himself."  He  continues,  requesting 
Allington  to  make  searches  and  to'  gather  what  in- 
formation he  can,  and  adds  some  data  and  argu- 
ments of  his  own,  in  rebuttal.  This  reputed  Sieve- 
Maker,  be  it  noted,  was  David  Cecil's  son  Richard, 
the  father  of  Burghley ;  of  this  Richard  more  anon. 
In  the  reply  by  Mr.  J.  England  Ewen  to  the  fore- 
going {I.e.)  there  is  an  extract  from  a  copy  of 
Powell's  History  of  Cambria  with  marginal  MS. 
notes,  rather  too'  long  to  quote.  It  ends  with  a  foot- 
note MS.:  "David  (i.e.,  David  Cecil,  Burghley's 
grandfather,)  kept  a  shop  on  London  Bridge,  grow- 
ing rich  bought  a  Sergeant  at Here  the  MS 

is  cut  through  by  the  binder;  one  line  cannot  be 
deciphered."  Concerning  Burghley 's  father,  Rich- 
ard Cecil,  we  learn  from  Collins'  English  Peerage 
(3,  155),  that  in  34  Henry  VIII  he  was  Yeoman 
of  the  Wardrobe.  In  Strickland's  Queen  Elizabeth 
the  authoress  tells  us  that  Parsons  the  Jesuit  stated 
that  Burghley  "  was  the  son  of  an  operative  tailor." 
Miss  Strickland  adds  the  following  note : — "  The 
highest  preferment  his  (i.e.,  Burghley's)  father 
Richard  Cecil  ever  obtained  was  yeoman  of  the 
robes ;  he  had  previously  served  Henry  VIII  and 
Ed'ward  VI  in  some  wardrobe  vocation,  but  whether 
he  had  ever  handled  shears  and  needle  according  to 
the  statement  of  Parsons  must  remain  matter  of 
speculation."  Richard  Cecil — the  yeoman  of  the 
wardrobe — married,  circa  1519,  Jane  the  daughter 

240 


APPENDIX 

and  heiress  of  William  Heckington,  of  Bourne,  Lin- 
colnsliire.  The  name  is  found  in  Lincolnsliire  as  far 
back  as  the  thirteenth  century.  This  heiress 
"  brought  her  husband,"  says  Dr.  Jessopp,  "  the 
splendid  estate  of  Burghley,"  and  it  was  from  this 
estate  that  their  son  William  Cecil  the  Lord  Treas- 
urer derived  his  title ;  he  being  "  the  only  son  of  an 
only  son,  and  heir  to  a  lordly  estate." 

Although  there  is  evidence  to'  show  that  the  for- 
bears of  Burgliley  held  a  position  of  more  impor- 
tance than  the  foregoing  accounts  would  indicate — 
Richard  Cecil  having  been  high  sheriff  of  his  shire 
and  constable  of  Warwick  Castle — nevertheless  it  is 
evident  that  Burgliley  was  a  man  of  ordinary  extrac- 
tion— to  use  the  words  of  one  writer, — and  it  is  clear 
that  at  the  time  Twelfth  Night  was  written  stories 
were  current  regarding  his  immediate  progenitors 
of  which  the  four  given  above,  crediting  them  with 
having  been  innkeepers,  sieve-makers,  storekeepers 
and  tailors,  have  come  down  to  us.  It  is  rather  sur- 
prising that  so  much  testimony  to  this  effect  is 
extant ;  for,  in  view  of  the  immense  power  of  Eliza- 
beth's Prime  Minister,  there  must  have  been  an  cle- 
ment of  danger  in  publishing  reports  so  derogatory 
to  his  family.  "  I  have  heard  much,"  said  Sir  John 
Harrington,  referring  to  a  wholly  different  subject, 
"  but  wiser  he  who'  rcpeateth  nothing  thereof." 

In  view  of  the  foregoing,  I  submit  that  there  are 
valid  reasons  for  believing  that  the  prototype  of  the 
yeoman  of  the  wardrobe  whom  the  lady  of  the 
Strachy  married  was  Richard  Cecil,  the  father  of 
Lord  Burghley.  That  he  was  a  yeoman  of  the 
16  241 


APPENDIX 

wardrobe  is  certain.  That  he  was  not  a  member  of 
the  aristocracy — to  say  the  least — is  equally  clear. 
That  he  married  a  lady  who  was  an  heiress  to  "  a 
lordly  estate  "  and  who  belonged  to'  a  family  long 
settled  in  Lincolnshire,  would  make  Malvolio's  com- 
parison entirely  appropriate.  But  the  strongest 
argument,  in  my  judgment,  is  that  this  interpreta- 
tion gives  point  to  the  steward's  otherwise  pointless 
words,  and  gives  a  certain  flavor  to  the  allusion  that 
would  have  been  appreciated  by  many  of  the  cour- 
tiers hearing  it — especially  by  those  of  the  anti-Cecil 
faction,  to  which  faction  the  poet  appears  to  have 
belonged.  The  Cecils,  father  and  son,  were  men 
who  stopped  at  little  in  the  accomplishment  of  their 
ends.  There  were  noblemen  in  England,  many  with 
royal  blood  in  their  veins,  whose  prosperity  and  even 
welfare  depended  upon  the  will  of  these  dispensers 
of  royal  favors.  Some  of  them  had  felt  the  heavy 
hand  of  Burghley  in  years  gone  by.  And  we  can 
readily  imagine  that  many  of  these  men  of  rank 
(remembering,  as  they  did,  the  comparatively  ob- 
scure origin  of  Burghley  and  his  son,  upon  whose 
shoulders  his  mantle  had  fallen)  would  highly  relish, 
at  the  performance  of  this  play,  any  such  delicately 
barbed  shaft  shot  directly  into  the  Cecil  blood  as 
was  embodied  in  the  veiled  allusion  that  fell  from 
the  lips  of  the  absurd  Malvolio — the  "  fellow  of  ser- 
vants," as  Maria  called  him  in  her  letter. 

Henry  Pemberton,  Jr. 


242 


(\ 


1^1 

3  P^ 


3  1205  00676  9853 


<^ 


UC  SOUTHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FACILITY 


A   A  001    403   000  1 


